Alannah Grady

The accused brought a Charter application seeking the exclusion of a loaded firearm discovered during a search incident to arrest for impaired driving.

The accused was found unresponsive in a running vehicle in the middle of an intersection.

The court found that the initial investigative detention and subsequent arrest were lawful, and that the police complied with their obligations under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court concluded there were no Charter breaches, and alternatively, that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges: threatening a corrections officer, assault with a weapon against his domestic partner, and breach of a bail order not to possess weapons.

The Crown sought seven months custody plus three years probation.

The defendant sought ninety days intermittent custody plus probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation and ancillary orders, crediting fifty-four real days of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to eighty-one days.

The judgment reflects extensive consideration of the defendant's traumatic background, mental health issues, and systemic failures in the criminal justice system, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit out-of-court text and Snapchat communications between alleged co-conspirators against the respondent, who is charged with first-degree murder.

The respondent argued the statements did not meet the necessity requirement because the declarants were available to testify.

The court granted the application, finding that the contemporaneous written communications were the best evidence available, the declarants were unlikely to be cooperative witnesses, and the statements met the threshold reliability and necessity requirements under the Carter test and the principled approach to hearsay.

The respondent is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown brought an application to admit discreditable conduct evidence, specifically photographs and videos of the respondent with firearms, as well as firearms and ammunition seized from two residences.

The court applied the Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence regarding means, opportunity, and identity against its prejudicial effect.

The court admitted several photos and videos connecting the respondent to 9mm ammunition and handguns similar to the unrecovered murder weapon, but excluded highly prejudicial images, including those depicting an Uzi and apparent drugs.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, brought a facial challenge to the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the ITO lacked reasonable grounds to implicate him or to believe evidence would be found at his home.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, viewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence—including witness descriptions matching the applicant, his association with co-conspirators, and evidence of prior conflict with the victim—upon which the authorizing justice could have reasonably issued the warrant.

The applicant, charged with murder, brought an application for disclosure of cell phone records from a separate homicide investigation, arguing they were relevant to a third party suspect defence.

The Crown argued the records were third party records subject to the O'Connor regime.

The court found that the police believed there was a connection between the two murders and that there was an air of reality to the third party suspect defence.

Consequently, the requested records were 'obviously relevant' and subject to the Crown's first party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe.

However, the court found the applicant's request for the entirety of the cell phones' content was overly broad and ordered the Crown to provide a list of the types of information available so the applicant could make a tailored request.

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, firearms offences, and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The murder involved a targeted public shooting with two firearms, resulting in one death and injuries to two others.

The court considered the offender's youth, guilty plea, and social context evidence of anti-Black racism, but found the aggravating factors, including elements of planning and deliberation, required a significant period of parole ineligibility.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, and a concurrent 13-year sentence for the firearms and drug offences.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and related weapons offences after shooting a victim during a drug robbery.

The Crown sought a 13-year global sentence, while the defence argued for significant mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and the offender's lived experience with anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years for totality, and further mitigated to 11 years to account for Duncan and Morris factors.

After applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 51 months in a federal penitentiary.

A young person, M.W., was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon following a group attack.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video identification, comparing high-quality surveillance footage of the accused from his residence with a low-quality cellphone video of the attack.

The court found that while the accused was clearly identifiable in the surveillance video, the clothing in the cellphone video only resembled, but could not definitively be identified as, the clothing worn by the accused.

Other circumstantial evidence, such as phone calls and post-attack behaviour, was deemed insufficient to corroborate participation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges due to the Crown's failure to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, a young person identified as M.W., applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 20.8 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, specifically identifying periods attributable to the defence.

It found that the defence's rejection of earlier trial dates without providing alternative availability constituted defence-caused delay.

After subtracting 9 months and 16 days of defence-caused delay, the net delay was calculated at 11 months and 3 days, which is well below the Jordan ceiling.

The court further determined that the defence failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings or that the case markedly exceeded its reasonable time requirements, as required for delays below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was denied.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for sexual assault, assault, criminal harassment, and breach offences arising from allegations by a former intimate partner.

He argued that the trial judge failed to consider corroborative defence evidence, failed to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, conflated the treatment of accused and non-accused witnesses, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge properly applied the governing credibility principles, including the W.(D.) framework, gave adequate reasons, and reasonably rejected the appellant's evidence as neither credible nor reliable.

The court found no material misapprehension of evidence, no reversible credibility error, and no unfairness in the scrutiny applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a criminal trial involving human trafficking and sex work offences, the trial judge issued a preliminary ruling on jury selection procedures following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Chouhan.

The court held that counsel, rather than the trial judge, would pose the challenge for cause questions to prospective jurors individually, without providing the questions in advance.

The court also permitted offence-based questions regarding the victim's race and occupation as a sex trade worker, and outlined the procedure for exercising the stand-by power under section 633 of the Criminal Code to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused applied for an order permitting him to re-elect his mode of trial to judge and jury, dispensing with the requirement for the Crown's consent under s. 561(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued his previous re-election to judge alone was not informed or voluntary.

The court found the accused's re-election to judge alone was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, and that there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice or Crown abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

Two young persons were convicted after trial of robbery with violence committed against a peer on the first week of school.

The offence involved a premeditated attack on an isolated location where the victim was lured, assaulted, robbed of personal items and marijuana, and left with bleeding feet after being forced to descend metal stairs barefoot.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of three months (two months secure custody followed by one month community supervision) followed by two years probation, finding that the seriousness of the offence, the degree of participation, the intentional and foreseeable harm, and the need for denunciation and accountability warranted custody despite the YCJA preference for non-custodial dispositions.

The defendant brought a motion for severance of two counts of sexual assault, seeking separate trials.

The Crown alleged sexual assaults occurred during chiropractic treatment of two employees of a restaurant where the defendant was a patron.

The court applied the test from R. v. Last, considering nine factors including general prejudice, legal and factual nexus, complexity, testimony intentions, inconsistent verdicts, multiplicity of proceedings, similar fact evidence, trial length, and reasonable trial timing.

The court found the defendant failed to establish that the interests of justice required separate trials and ordered trial on the information as framed.

Ian Ohab was convicted of second-degree murder and pleaded guilty to indignity to a human body.

The victim, Melissa Cooper, was killed and dismembered by Ohab, who then disposed of her body parts.

The Crown sought a 25-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence proposed 15-18 years.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, Ohab's meticulous concealment of the crime, the dismemberment and disposal of the body, and his disturbing criminal record of violence against women.

Mitigating factors were minimal, with Ohab showing no remorse and continuing to deny the murder.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 22 years, plus a concurrent 5-year sentence for indignity to a human body.

Ian Ohab, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the first-degree murder count.

The Crown argued that evidence of sexual assault and forcible confinement provided the basis for first-degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court, applying the test for a directed verdict, found no evidence capable of supporting an inference of sexual assault or unlawful confinement.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the accused will stand trial for second-degree murder only.

Zaheer Ahmad was found guilty of criminal harassment.

The court considered aggravating factors including a history of similar offences, lack of insight, and escalating threats, and mitigating factors such as no contact with the victim post-arrest.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, plus probation and ancillary orders, while the defence argued for time served (18 months pre-sentence custody) or a suspended sentence.

The court imposed an additional 5 months less one day of incarceration, a three-year probationary period with conditions, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a restitution order for the victim.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment for repeatedly communicating with his former roommate between August 2015 and June 2016.

Despite the complainant explicitly telling the accused to stop contacting her and refusing to let him live with her again, the accused sent a barrage of unpredictable, aggressive, and sometimes threatening emails.

The court found that the accused's conduct caused the complainant to be harassed and to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was found guilty of criminal harassment under s. 264(1) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code.