Alana Fedak-Tarnopolsky

The accused, Michael Meinzinger, pleaded guilty to careless storage of a firearm and possessing a loaded restricted handgun.

The offences occurred during a severe mental health crisis where he expressed suicidal ideations and a desire for "suicide by police" via text messages and photographs of a handgun.

Police apprehended him under the Mental Health Act.

The court found a causal link between his transient mental health crisis and the offending conduct, which attenuated his moral blameworthiness.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, along with concurrent probation orders for 12 months, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing rehabilitation over strict denunciation given the unique circumstances.

The accused, Jerome Lemon-Allison, was charged with robbery of a Scotiabank branch.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video identification, inculpatory statements made to undercover police officers, and evidence of acts and circumstances.

The court applied principles from R. v. Nikolovski for video identification and R. v. Villaroman for assessing circumstantial evidence.

The doctrine of recent possession was considered but not ultimately applied.

The court found a strong resemblance between the accused and individuals in Snapchat and surveillance videos, and accepted the reliability of the undercover officers' testimony regarding the accused's admissions about possessing cash and needing money laundering services.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was a party to the robbery and found him guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and with care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b).

The accused was found slumped over asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle stopped in a live lane of traffic on a busy roadway.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, and whether any Charter violations occurred.

The trial judge found no Charter violations and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault alleged to have occurred on an Air Canada flight from Toronto to New Delhi on October 28, 2016.

The complainant testified that while she was sleeping, the accused placed her hand on his erect penis.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant had fallen asleep with her head on his shoulder.

The trial judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when compared to the testimony of the Air Canada Service Director.

While the judge believed something occurred on the flight, the reliability of the complainant's evidence was undermined by multiple inconsistencies regarding the timing of the incident, how the flight attendant became aware of the complaint, and the nature of the touching.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with two counts of aggravated assault following a stabbing incident outside a bar in Brampton.

Two victims were stabbed during an altercation.

The Crown's case relied primarily on security video evidence and circumstantial evidence, as no eyewitness directly identified the accused as the perpetrator.

The court found that while the evidence established guilt on a balance of probabilities and the accused was very likely guilty, a reasonable doubt remained regarding identification based on the video evidence and other circumstantial factors.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code and obstructing a peace officer contrary to s. 129(a).

A police officer observed the accused exit the driver's seat of a van upon noticing a police car behind him and move to the rear of the vehicle.

The officer conducted an investigative detention, pat-down search, and made an ASD demand.

The accused refused.

The accused challenged the validity of the detention, search, and ASD demand, and alleged breaches of his Charter rights.

The court found the ASD demand was valid based on the odour of alcohol.

While Charter breaches were found regarding the search and right to counsel, the evidence was not excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on June 3, 2012, when he allegedly assaulted his former long-term partner following her attendance at a party.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and found the accused's evidence not credible and evasive on key points, including his explanations for attending anger management counselling and his knowledge of the complainant's hospital visit.

The complainant's testimony was found to be largely credible, though some aspects were exaggerated.

The court accepted corroborating evidence in the form of photographs showing injuries consistent with choking, the complainant's hospital attendance shortly after the alleged assault, and the accused's subsequent attendance at anger management counselling.

The court found the accused guilty of the lesser and included offence of assault.