Alayna Nimue Kathleen Jay

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ransom Dashner to a 12-month conditional sentence order to be served in the community for Assault with a Weapon and Breach of Probation.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors reflecting Dashner’s Indigenous heritage, intergenerational trauma, and rehabilitative efforts including sobriety and treatment programs.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offence involving an imitation firearm used in a violent street fight while Dashner was on probation.

The decision balances the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint, rejecting a suspended sentence and probation as insufficient given the offender’s history and the public safety risk.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced T.O. following his guilty pleas to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1) and one count of theft under s. 334(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The offences involved surreptitious sexualized photography of children and adults, including nude images and the theft and sexual use of victims' underwear.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the large volume of images (over 1,000), the prolonged duration of offending over five years, abuse of trust, and the significant impact on victims and their families.

Mitigating factors included T.O.'s lack of prior record at the time of offences, guilty pleas, remorse, and engagement in treatment.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, imposing an effective custodial sentence of almost 18 months, followed by three years’ probation with strict conditions, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, forfeiture of electronic devices, and communication restrictions.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ryan Wood to an effective four years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, concurrent with an 18-month sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender, a 31-year-old with a serious and related criminal record including prior firearm offences and breaches of court orders, was credited 1.5 days for each day in pretrial custody.

The court emphasized the seriousness of firearm offences, especially for repeat offenders, and considered systemic anti-Black racism as a mitigating factor but found it insufficient to reduce the sentence below the Crown’s position.

The decision reflects careful balancing of deterrence, denunciation, public safety, and rehabilitation principles.

The applicant, Liam Stinson, convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and arson causing bodily harm, brought an application for the trial judge to recuse himself from sentencing.

The application was based on an email sent by the investigating officer to the judge's judicial assistant, which the applicant argued created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge noted that the email contained no sentencing submissions or requests for a particular outcome, and that the judge had acted ethically by consulting the Judicial Ethics Committee and disclosing the email to counsel.

The court emphasized the trial judge's unique advantage in sentencing due to having presided over the trial.

Liam Stinson, charged with three counts of first-degree murder and one count of arson causing bodily harm, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on the murder charges at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown argued Stinson was a principal perpetrator through the use of innocent agents (Jared Herrick and Phillippe Jeannotte) in the firebombing that resulted in three deaths.

The court dismissed the application, finding sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence for a jury to conclude Stinson intended to commit murder and used the agents to achieve this, having misled them into believing the residence was unoccupied.

The jury subsequently found Stinson guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused, Liam Stinson, is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of ante-mortem hearsay statements made by the deceased victim, Jamie Lynn Rose.

The Crown sought to admit these statements under the *res gestae* exception or the principled approach to hearsay, arguing their relevance to the deceased's state of mind, the accused's animus, motive, and identity.

The court applied the tests of necessity, reliability (procedural and substantive), and the probative value versus prejudicial effect.

Many statements were excluded due to lack of contemporaneousness, suspicious circumstances, contradictory evidence, or the declarant's motive to lie.

Other statements, particularly those made closer to the time of death and without reliability concerns, were admitted.

The court emphasized avoiding "trials within a trial" and undue prejudice from cumulative evidence.