A. Kwan

The offender was convicted after trial of 24 weapons-related offences including possession of two loaded unlawful handguns, a loaded unlawful rifle, nine prohibited devices, and approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition for the purpose of transfer, as well as eight breaches of s. 109 prohibition orders.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender with prior penitentiary terms including an equivalent 11-year sentence in 2018 for firearm trafficking, resisted the search warrant execution by initiating a lengthy armed standoff requiring deployment of the Emergency Task Force.

The court identified the new sentencing range for a repeat s. 95 offender under the post-2023 regime as 10–14 years.

A global notional sentence of 12 years was imposed, reduced by one year of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, and a further 2.8 years of Summers credit (1.5:1 for 685 days), yielding 8.2 years (2,993 days) remaining to serve.

A lifetime s. 109 prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including robbery and reckless discharge of a firearm, after firing a handgun into a ceiling to distract police while co-conspirators robbed a jewelry store.

The accused absconded prior to sentencing.

The court found the accused had absconded within the meaning of s. 475 of the Criminal Code but proceeded with sentencing in absentia as a presentence report provided sufficient information.

The court imposed a total sentence of 77.5 months imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for presentence custody, resulting in 70 months left to serve.

The Crown applied to have the court endorse a certificate of default pursuant to s. 770(1) of the Criminal Code, alleging the respondent breached his bail conditions by failing to reside at his specified address, breaching a curfew, and committing offences in the United States.

The respondent had failed to attend the last day of his trial because he was in custody in New York.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent failed to reside at his address, breached his curfew without an applicable exception, or committed the alleged offences in the US.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

Four co-accused were tried for their alleged roles in a coordinated jewellery store robbery and a preceding distraction shooting.

The Crown relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including covert video surveillance, intercepted communications, and DNA.

The court acquitted Hadi of all charges due to reasonable doubt regarding his identification from video evidence.

Mitsakis and Bangura were convicted of conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offences related to the distraction shooting, as DNA and circumstantial evidence proved their involvement.

Mohamed was acquitted of robbery but convicted of being an accessory after the fact, dangerous driving, and fleeing from police after he attempted to escape the arrest scene in a vehicle containing evidence.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for the production of medical and counselling records of the Crown's key witness.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to make full answer and defence, as they related to the witness's credibility, reliability, and inconsistent statements.

The court applied the O'Connor and McNeil frameworks and found the records were likely relevant.

After reviewing the records, the court ordered partial production subject to redactions and strict conditions to balance the accused's right to make full answer and defence with the witness's privacy interests.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault, brought an application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his trial.

The defence argued that sitting in the dock carried a stigma and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication.

The Crown opposed, citing security concerns and the lack of exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the customary position is in the dock, the accused failed to show exceptional circumstances, and there were valid security concerns given his criminal record and outstanding charges for violent offences in custody.

The offender was convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident after striking and killing a 71-year-old pedestrian.

Following the collision, the offender fled, attempted to conceal his involvement by further damaging the vehicle to fake vandalism, and lied to his family and a mechanic.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the calculated deception and lack of genuine remorse, against mitigating factors such as his lack of a prior record and compliance with bail conditions.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day, reduced by pre-sentence and strict bail credits to a net sentence of 447 days, along with a DNA order and a three-year driving prohibition.