Alexander Merenda

The applicant sought to introduce Signal messages exchanged with the complainant before and after an alleged sexual assault.

The complainant objected to the admissibility of certain exhibits under sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that messages sent before the encounter (Exhibit 1) were admissible under both regimes as they were relevant to the issue of consent and did not engage prohibited twin myth reasoning.

Messages sent after the encounter (Exhibit 3) were found not to constitute a record under section 278.1 and were therefore admissible without requiring an application under section 278.92.

The court also addressed the effect of a partial waiver of privacy rights by the complainant.

The court sentenced Richard Goodland to 3.5 years in the penitentiary for possession of child pornography, following a conviction based on undisputed facts.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the accused’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasizes the harm caused by child pornography, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and Parliament’s direction for increased sentences for offences against children.

Ancillary orders were also imposed, including forfeiture, internet restrictions, SOIRA, DNA order, and a prohibition on contact with persons under 16.

This sentencing decision concerns Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey, who were convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder of Thane Murray and the attempted murder of Allen Uthayakumaran and Tony Nguyen.

The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for first-degree murder and, after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, imposed concurrent life sentences for the two counts of attempted murder.

The reasons detail the circumstances of the offence, the profound impact on the victims and community, the backgrounds of the offenders, and the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

The court considered whether to admit expert evidence from Dr. Jabari M. Evans on the history and social context of drill rap in a criminal trial involving the use of rap lyrics as circumstantial evidence.

The defence sought to qualify Dr. Evans to provide context for the jury regarding the conventions of drill rap, arguing that a jury instruction would be insufficient, especially given the risk of racist stereotypes.

The Crown opposed, citing prejudice and confusion.

The court found that the subject matter was not complex and that a proper jury instruction would suffice.

The court held that Dr. Evans' evidence was not necessary and, even if it were, its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its probative value.

The evidence was excluded.

The court found Tekele Ogbamichael guilty of sexual assault in four counts and guilty of the lesser included offence of assault on one count, following a series of incidents on public transit in the Greater Toronto Area.

The decision details the evidence of each complainant, the police investigation, and the application of cross-count similar fact evidence to establish identity.

The court found the similarities between the incidents—modus operandi, description, and circumstances—were so striking as to make coincidence highly improbable.

The judge also addressed the frailties of eyewitness identification and the use of circumstantial evidence, ultimately concluding that the Crown had proven identity and the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a prosecution for first-degree murder and attempted murder, the accused brought pre-trial motions challenging the search warrants for a residence and cell phones under s. 8 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown brought a motion to adduce extrinsic misconduct evidence, including rap lyrics and videos of firearms found on the accused's phones.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter motions, finding the ITOs sufficient and admitting the evidence despite technical breaches regarding the timing of Reports to Justice.

The court partially granted the Crown's motion, admitting the rap lyrics and firearm videos as highly probative of animus and means, while excluding certain photographs due to prejudicial effect.

The accused, Nehemy Yogo, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence or registration, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearm, a fully automatic Glock 23 Gen 4, was found in his bedroom after he displayed it to intimidate a driver over an unpaid debt.

The Crown sought a three-year imprisonment sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing mitigating factors such as the accused being a first offender, his guilty plea, remorse, strong family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation.

Credit for pre-sentence custody was granted for 237 days, including an additional 60 days for harsh conditions.

A lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of the firearm were also ordered.

The defendants were sentenced following their convictions for kidnapping (both defendants) and aggravated assault, robbery, and uttering death threats (one defendant).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm and severe injuries to the victim, and mitigating factors such as youth, lack of prior records, and compliance with release conditions.

The decision also addressed constitutional challenges to minimum sentences and a victim restitution request.

The first defendant received 4 years and 3 months for kidnapping, while the second defendant received a global sentence of 4 years and 9 months for kidnapping, aggravated assault, and robbery (death threats stayed).

Following a jury trial where the defendants were convicted of kidnapping and other offences, the Crown sought a Gardiner ruling to establish that a firearm was used during the commission of the offences.

The court reviewed the evidence, including victim testimony, photographs of injuries, and security footage.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that an operative firearm was used by a co-perpetrator to threaten and assault the victim during the kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault, and uttering of death threats.

This finding triggers mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under the Criminal Code.

The defendant, Ashton Gray, a 33-year-old Mi’kmaq, Black, and transgender individual with a history of mental health issues and homelessness, pleaded guilty to mischief to a religious structure (motivated by bias) and possession of an incendiary device.

These offenses occurred shortly after being released on a conditional sentence for previous mischief and assault charges.

The Crown sought to collapse the conditional sentence and impose an additional 6-9 months of jail.

The defense argued for a more lenient sentence, citing the defendant's background, the impact of colonialism and residential schools, and the relatively minor damage caused.

The court acknowledged the defendant's Gladue factors and mental health but emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, the breach of the conditional sentence, and the unacceptability of vigilante justice.

The conditional sentence was collapsed, and a total of 120 days of custody was imposed for the new offenses.

This case concerns a Charter application to exclude firearm evidence in a criminal trial.

The defendant, a Black male, was stopped by police based on a robbery suspect description (white male, skinny build) that he did not match.

The court found that the initial detention was unlawful, violating sections 9 (arbitrary detention) and 10 (right to counsel) of the Charter, as police lacked reasonable suspicion and failed to provide rights immediately.

Constable Akgul's testimony regarding the reasons for detention was deemed unreliable.

However, the court accepted Constable Mehmoud's evidence that subsequent observations of the defendant displaying signs of firearm possession created reasonable suspicion for the physical takedown, during which the loaded firearm fell out.

The court found no section 8 (unreasonable search) violation.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the Charter breaches due to the officer's wilful disregard and fabricated reasons.

However, the impact on the defendant's Charter rights was deemed fleeting, as the evidence would have been discovered lawfully seconds later.

Crucially, society's interest in adjudicating serious firearm offences on their merits overwhelmingly favored admission.

Consequently, the firearm evidence was admitted.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, breach of probation (failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour), and possession of prohibited incendiary devices.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and represented himself.

The Crown initially raised a not criminally responsible (NCR) defence but abandoned it after a psychiatric assessment concluded the defendant did not qualify.

However, after receiving additional material including prior court transcripts, the Crown renewed the NCR application.

The trial judge found the defendant NCR for the assault and related breach of probation based on the totality of evidence, despite the psychiatrist's opinion to the contrary.

The defendant was convicted of the lighter possession charge and sentenced to one day in jail, with disposition to be determined by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused, Danna Millan, sought a bail review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and extortion.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 crisis and the addition of a third surety.

The court found that the proposed release plan, including three sureties and strict house arrest, sufficiently addressed the tertiary grounds, and granted release.

The applicant, Zaaman Yusuf, sought a bail review after being denied bail on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, extortion, aggravated assault, and firearm and drug offences.

The defence argued for release based on a revised supervision plan with two sureties and the material change in circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the addition of a second surety did not constitute a material change and expressed concerns about the sureties' naiveté regarding the applicant's activities and the plan's ability to prevent re-offending or interference with justice.

While acknowledging the pandemic as a material change, the court found no specific health vulnerability for the applicant and noted the correctional facility's measures.

Ultimately, the application for release was denied, concluding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be eroded by the applicant's release given the gravity of the offences, the strength of the Crown's case, and the deficiencies in the proposed supervision plan.