Alan Spiegel

Nigel White pleaded guilty to two counts of assault bodily harm and one count of failing to comply with a probation order, stemming from random, unprovoked attacks on strangers at a subway station and a breach of a prior probation order.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year sentence, while the defence argued for 12 months, citing the offender's schizophrenia as a mitigating factor.

The court admitted a chart detailing prior similar violent convictions on public transit.

The court balanced aggravating factors, including the random nature of the attacks on public transit and the offender's criminal history, with mitigating factors such as an early guilty plea, remorse, and mental illness.

The court imposed a 20-month jail sentence, less pre-trial custody, followed by a 2-year probation order with conditions aimed at rehabilitation, including mental health and substance abuse counselling.

The accused, a young Black man, sought release from custody through a combined 90-day detention review and a bail review.

He was facing charges including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breaching a previous release order by deliberately evading GPS monitoring.

The court found that while the justice of the peace erred in law by failing to explicitly consider the accused's status as a member of a vulnerable population under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code, the error did not affect the outcome given the egregious nature of the breach and the inadequacy of the proposed release plan.

The court also rejected the accused's argument for release based on fear of COVID-19, noting his refusal to be vaccinated.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was found justified.

The applicant sought a bail review under section 520(1) of the Criminal Code, requesting vacation of a prior detention order.

The application was based on two alleged material changes in circumstances: a new release plan with different sureties (uncle and aunt) and the prevalence of COVID-19 in society and jails.

The court dismissed the application, finding that neither the new release plan nor the COVID-19 pandemic, without specific medical evidence for the applicant, constituted a material change sufficient to warrant release on secondary or tertiary grounds.

The court emphasized the escalating gravity of the alleged firearm and drug offences and the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions.

T.L. brought a bail review application after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds following a shooting incident.

The initial bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace was flawed due to a misapprehension of evidence regarding a proposed surety.

The Superior Court conducted a *de novo* hearing, considering a new supervision plan involving house arrest with grandparents as sureties, electronic monitoring, and the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the accused satisfied the onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds, emphasizing the strength of the supervision plan and the elevated risks of detention during the pandemic.

T.L. was released on strict conditions.

The accused was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals under sections 446(1) and 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a protracted trial.

The accused maintained approximately 107 cats in severely neglected conditions, resulting in widespread disease, suffering, and the eventual euthanization of all but one animal.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of four to six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, a DNA data banking order, and a lifetime prohibition on pet ownership.

The accused sought a non-custodial disposition.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, 100 hours of community service, and a restriction to no more than two domestic animals at any time, rejecting both custodial sentencing and the lifetime pet prohibition.

The accused stood trial before a judge alone on allegations of sexual interference and related offences involving a young child who was his grandchild.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and her mother, along with a videotaped statement admitted under the Criminal Code.

The defence called the accused and the complainant’s grandmother, both denying the allegations and challenging the reliability of the complainant’s account.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence when compared with other evidence at trial.

Applying the principles in R. v. W. (D.), the court concluded the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals.