3 total
Youthful first offender sentenced to 5 years for manslaughter involving a firearm and self-defence.
The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting the victim in self-defence.
The guilty plea was based on the offender intentionally bringing a firearm to a party and provoking a conflict with the victim.
The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and the extremely harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
The court imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, leaving 129 days to serve after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.
The court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings, finding the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling after deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances.
The applicant, Teshome Daste Adane, sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the total delay of 45 months exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court proceedings established in R. v. Jordan.
The court analyzed the timeline, attributing significant portions of the delay to both the Crown (for disclosure delays) and the defence (for not diligently pursuing a Judicial Pre-trial and not choosing the earliest trial date due to a planned trip).
After subtracting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (delay in arrest due to the applicant being abroad, and the COVID-19 pandemic), the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling.
The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as the court found no basis to exercise its residual discretion.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed; finding of significant threat to public safety upheld.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatric facility.
He argued the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that the Board breached its duty to inquire into his allegations of staff interference.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the appellant's complaints lacked the air of reality necessary to trigger the Board's duty to inquire.