Alice Bradstreet

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in her parole ineligibility period.

The court had previously determined there was a reasonable prospect the application would proceed and empanelled a jury.

After hearing evidence over twelve days, the jury reduced the applicant's parole eligibility date from May 16, 2032 to May 16, 2029, granting a three-year reduction in parole ineligibility.

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.

The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.

The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, reckless discharge of a firearm, killing a service animal, and possession of a loaded firearm.

The offences occurred over approximately 24 hours: the accused shot and killed the victim in his daughter's apartment after a physical altercation; the following day, he fired at a police officer attempting to arrest him; and subsequently shot and killed a police service dog during his apprehension.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a 14-year global sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission while providing detailed sentencing analysis for each offence, explaining how the principle of totality reduced what would otherwise have been a 23-year sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and failure to comply with a release order following a string of 16 convenience store robberies committed over four hours.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court considered the offender's background, including anti-Black racism and mental health issues, alongside the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun and robbery offences.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with enhanced credit granted for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns, leaving 633 days to serve.

Nicola Puddicombe, convicted of first-degree murder, applied for a reduction in her parole eligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge determined whether there was a reasonable prospect that a jury would reduce her parole ineligibility.

The court found that despite the cold-blooded nature of the murder and the applicant's initial denial of full responsibility, her significant progress in therapy, positive institutional conduct, and evolving insight into her role in the offence provided a reasonable likelihood of success before a jury.

The application to empanel a jury was granted.

The accused was charged with drug and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at a residence.

During the search, police found drugs and cash, and subsequently questioned the accused without providing rights to counsel or a caution, eliciting statements about vehicle keys.

The police used these statements to seize the keys and search two vehicles, locating firearms.

The court found egregious violations of the accused's ss. 8 and 10(b) Charter rights, noting that senior officers acted carelessly, showed blatant disregard for Charter rights, and misled the court.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The two offenders were convicted by a jury of a violent armed home invasion robbery and related firearms offences.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the planned home invasion and use of firearms, balanced against mitigating factors including the offenders' youthful status, expressions of remorse, and the significant impact of systemic anti-Black racism on their backgrounds as detailed in Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports.

The court applied the Morris framework to reduce their moral culpability and emphasize rehabilitation, sentencing the first offender to 9 years and the second offender to 7.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The defendant, Irby Lemus, was convicted of sexual interference and making and distributing child pornography involving a 14-year-old victim who became pregnant.

The court, after independently finding facts regarding the extent of the sexual interference and the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age, proceeded to sentencing.

The Crown sought 12-15 years, while the defence sought a stay or conditional sentence.

The court determined a base sentence of five years and six months, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the intimate nature of the illegal relationship, the resulting pregnancy, and the duration of the abuse.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of a criminal record, pro-social life, family support, and the collateral consequence of separation from his children.

A significant 18-month reduction was applied to the sentence due to a serious s. 7 Charter breach by the Crown, who deliberately failed to disclose material information during a bail review, misleading the court and attempting to interfere with the defendant's parental rights.

Egypt Morgan was sentenced for manslaughter after being jointly charged with first-degree murder.

The jury found her guilty of manslaughter, while her co-accused, Shamoi Palmer, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The victim, Jermaine Titus, was an innocent bystander killed by a bullet intended for another individual.

Morgan's role involved alerting Palmer to the victim's location, knowing Palmer possessed a firearm and intended to discharge it recklessly.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, the planned nature of Morgan's actions, the innocent victim, and her post-offence assistance to Palmer.

Mitigating factors included her status as a youthful first offender, family support, participation in rehabilitation programs, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, with credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 3 years, 9 months, and 21 days to serve.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a targeted shooting where the victim was shot at 28 times but survived.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell tower data, and the accused's subsequent use of the rental vehicle involved in the shooting.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, assessing whether guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the driver during the shooting, noting inconsistencies in the phone records and alternative reasonable inferences.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.

During a judge-alone trial for attempted murder, the Crown brought an application to introduce Snapchat messages sent by an unavailable co-accused under the principled approach to hearsay.

The Crown sought to admit messages where the co-accused admitted to being a shooter, as well as messages allegedly identifying the accused as the driver and renter of the vehicle used in the shooting.

The court admitted the messages regarding the co-accused's own involvement, finding threshold reliability was met through strong corroborative evidence.

However, the court excluded the messages implicating the accused, finding they lacked threshold reliability due to significant hearsay dangers of narration, ambiguity, and sincerity.

This decision addresses the admissibility of a photograph in a criminal trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit a photograph alleged to depict the accused at the scene of a shooting, despite the defence's argument that it lacked authentication due to informer privilege and the absence of a direct authenticating witness.

The court ruled that the photograph was admissible, finding it had been authenticated by circumstantial evidence through comparison with other reliable video and photographic evidence.

Concerns regarding the photo's origin or potential tampering were deemed matters of weight for the trier of fact, not admissibility.

The accused, Kevin George, was sentenced for discharging a firearm with intent and failing to comply with a release order, stemming from a shooting at his child's birthday party where he fired six rounds, injuring two children and another man.

The court stayed aggravated assault convictions under the Kienapple principle.

The judge considered the serious aggravating factors, including the use of a handgun, the large number of people imperiled (especially children), the breach of bail, and the number of shots fired.

While acknowledging the devastating impact of the injuries, the court found that causation for the injuries was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused, thus not treating them as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included family support, employment efforts, youth, and the limited impact of race and social context on moral culpability.

The court imposed a sentence of 11 years in penitentiary, reduced by 10.5 months for pre-sentence custody, for a net sentence of 10 years, 1.5 months, to be served concurrently with a 12-month sentence for the bail breach.

Kevin George was charged with 14 criminal offences following a shootout at his child's birthday party.

The court found him guilty of discharging a firearm with intent at Demar Cadogan and Tianna Green, aggravated assault on Demar Cadogan and Tianna Green, and failing to comply with a release order.

He was found not guilty of attempted murder, other discharge firearm/aggravated assault counts, and firearm possession charges due to insufficient evidence regarding party liability, specific intent to kill, or proof of firearm type/licensing.

The court extensively analyzed circumstantial evidence for identity and the principles of party liability.

During his criminal trial for a firearms offence, the accused refused to answer a question during cross-examination about the identity of a person who gave him a satchel, citing fears for his safety.

The Crown brought a motion to hold him in contempt of court.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to seriously interfere with the administration of justice.

The court also noted that the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to consult counsel before being required to answer.

The defendant, charged with attempted murder and administering a noxious substance after allegedly injecting her mother, her daughter, and herself with insulin, brought an application to admit evidence of an alternate suspect.

She sought to introduce evidence suggesting her estranged husband committed the crimes.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed evidence lacked a sufficient connection to the crime and was largely speculative or reliant on inadmissible hearsay.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder for allegedly shooting an innocent bystander during a drive-by shooting, applied for bail.

The court found the Crown's case to be extremely strong and noted the accused's extensive criminal record, including numerous bail breaches and violent offences.

The court dismissed the application, concluding the accused failed to meet his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, as he posed a significant risk to public safety and his release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The defendants were convicted of multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise, arising from a series of ATM robberies.

The defendants brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory consecutive minimum sentences under s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding it was bound by appellate authority and that the sentences were not grossly disproportionate for the offenders or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

The court also rejected a request to artificially allocate the sentences to avoid collateral immigration consequences for one of the defendants.

Both defendants were sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

Zaid Mohammed was found guilty of aggravated assault following a plea and appeared for sentencing.

The Crown sought five years (60 months) in custody, while the defence sought 30 to 36 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated, armed, and violent nature of the attack, the severe and permanent injuries to the victim (loss of sight in one eye), and the offender's criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, family support, guilty plea, participation in rehabilitation programs while incarcerated, and the provocation related to the theft of his dog.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody (Summers credit), harsh lockdown conditions (Duncan credit), and stringent bail conditions (Downes credit), a total of 18 months and 10 days of credit was granted, leaving a remaining sentence of 21 months and 21 days to be served.

Ancillary orders for a mandatory DNA sample and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of robbery, attempted robbery, conspiracy, and weapons offences related to a series of ATM robberies in Toronto.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence, including distinctive clothing worn by the perpetrators, to link the defendants to the earlier robberies after they were arrested during an attempted ATM robbery.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess the defendants' testimony and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the defendants' explanations, found the circumstantial evidence of identity compelling, and convicted both defendants on all remaining counts.