Alice Bradstreet

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.

The offender was convicted of possession of a restricted firearm, a prohibited over-capacity magazine, and possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the presence of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and strong family support.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with the firearm offences to be served consecutively to the drug offences.

The offender received enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of 631 days.

During a trial for multiple ATM robberies, the Crown brought an application to admit evidence of each robbery as similar fact evidence on all counts to prove identity.

The Crown argued that the perpetrators shared a specific modus operandi and wore distinctive clothing, including a bleach-stained hoodie and specific combinations of other garments.

The court applied the Handy and Arp frameworks, finding that the cumulative similarities in the manner of the robberies and the unique clothing worn by the perpetrators established a high degree of similarity.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and granted the application.

The court considered whether amendments to section 535 of the Criminal Code, effective September 19, 2019, which restricted preliminary inquiries to offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years or more, applied retroactively to invalidate elections for preliminary inquiries made before the amendment.

The Crown argued that prior elections were nullified and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The defence argued the amendment did not apply retroactively to vested rights and that validly made elections survived the enactment.

The court found itself bound by the Superior Court decision in R. v. R.S., which held that the Ontario Court of Justice lost jurisdiction to conduct preliminary inquiries except for offences with a 14-year maximum penalty as of September 19, 2019.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at his family home, finding a loaded handgun, cocaine, heroin, and cash in a bedroom.

At trial, a defence witness unexpectedly testified that the firearm belonged to him.

Police arrested and interviewed the witness mid-testimony, prompting the defence to bring an abuse of process application alleging witness tampering.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police acted within their lawful ancillary powers to investigate the witness's confession.

On the merits, the court rejected the witness's confession as not credible and found the accused guilty of all charges based on constructive possession.