Alannah Grady

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.

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.

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 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 defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg).

She brought three Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of her detention and access to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 10(b) regarding delayed access to duty counsel, as the delay was explained by technical difficulties with a newly installed telephone system and the officers made diligent efforts to contact counsel.

The court found no breach of section 8 regarding the timing of breath samples, holding that the "as soon as practicable" requirement is not a precondition to admissibility when the Crown does not rely on the statutory presumption of identity and instead calls expert evidence to establish the readings at the time of driving.

The court found a breach of section 9 regarding arbitrary detention, specifically a three-hour period of overholding after 11:30 AM when the defendant should have been released, but declined to exclude the breath evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach was not sufficiently serious and that society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured inclusion.

On the merits, the court found the defendant guilty of both impaired driving and over 80, rejecting her evidence regarding her pattern of alcohol consumption and her bolus drinking defence as lacking credibility and defying common sense.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and robbery arising from an incident with the complainant following the accused’s release from custody.

The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted and sexually assaulted her after she visited his apartment, while the accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and that the dispute related to drugs and money.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court found both the complainant and the accused to be unreliable witnesses.

Elements of the accused’s account were considered plausible and left the court with a reasonable doubt.

In light of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and inconclusive corroborative evidence, the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.