Alison R. Mackay

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery committed over a short period.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence and a 10-year Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The offender has a lengthy criminal record, including sexual offences, and suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The court found the offender poses a substantial risk of reoffending but that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community with strict supervision.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 2 months, reduced to 6 months after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody in harsh conditions, followed by a 7-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Morgan Lindo’s application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, finding that although the total delay from the swearing of the Information to the last scheduled trial date exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials, the net delay after deducting defence delay was just under the ceiling.

The defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the trial, including delays in correcting contact information, scheduling trial conferences, and filing the 11(b) application.

The Court emphasized the need for defence counsel to act reasonably and proactively to avoid unreasonable delay and held that the delay was not markedly longer than reasonably necessary given the case complexity and local backlog.

The applicant, Mr. Habte, sought the exclusion of a firearm, cash, and drugs found during warrantless searches of his person and vehicle, alleging multiple Charter violations.

The court determined that the police arbitrarily detained the applicant by boxing in his vehicle without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Additionally, the subsequent searches under the pretext of a cannabis investigation violated section 8 of the Charter, and his section 10 rights were also breached.

Applying the section 24(2) framework, the court concluded that the serious and cumulative nature of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence.

Consequently, the Charter application was granted.

The defendant, Georges Sarrouh, was charged with sexually assaulting his former employee, LM.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, LM, her brother CM, and the defendant.

The defence alleged that LM and CM were attempting to extort money from Sarrouh.

The court found LM and CM to be credible and reliable witnesses, while finding Sarrouh's account of extortion wanting.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarrouh sexually assaulted LM as described and found him guilty.

The defendant, Avardeep Soni, brought an application to stay proceedings for two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, deducting defence-attributable delay (18 days for delaying JPT to pursue resolution) and exceptional circumstances delay (30 days for COVID-19 backlog and new scheduling procedures).

The net delay was calculated at 16.56 months, which is below the presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings and that the case markedly exceeded what was reasonably required.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Nimal Ranatunga, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, M.F., testified that she consented to sexual intercourse only on the condition that a condom be used.

The defendant initially complied but then removed the condom during intercourse without M.F.'s knowledge or consent.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Kirkpatrick regarding non-consensual condom removal.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant, and whether the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found M.F. to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the defendant's claim that he informed M.F. or that her subsequent actions implied consent.

The court concluded that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent for unprotected sex, finding him guilty of sexual assault.

Nimal Ranatunga was found guilty of sexually assaulting MF by removing a condom during consensual intercourse without her permission ("stealthing").

The victim suffered severe trauma, depression, and anxiety.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and the evolving legal landscape regarding non-consensual condom removal as sexual assault (referencing Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson).

While the Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, and the defence sought a 2-year conditional sentence, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the first 10 months under house arrest, followed by 8 months of curfew, and 6 months of statutory terms.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition (life for prohibited firearms), and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The court found the conditional sentence appropriate given the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender, noting the qualitative difference from sexual assaults involving physical restraint, and the offender's good rehabilitative prospects and remorse.

The accused, Ameen Jazei, was found guilty of kidnapping and assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of an imitation firearm and a group attack, and mitigating factors such as his youth at the time of the offence and significant family support.

The judgment also addressed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers and Duncan credits).

The Crown sought 3.5 years in penitentiary, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence or a three-month jail term.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given a bail breach and subsequent serious offence.

A 12-month custodial sentence for kidnapping and a concurrent 5-month sentence for assault were imposed, followed by 2 years of probation.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the scheduled trial date was 26.35 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted 194 days of defence delay, including time for not promptly scheduling pre-trials and a trial scheduling conference, and 101 days for the delay in notifying the Crown of the 11(b) application.

Despite the remaining net delay of 19.98 months still exceeding the ceiling, the court found the Crown could not rely on the pandemic backlog as an exceptional circumstance because it failed to take steps to mitigate the delay once notified of the 11(b) issue.

The application was granted, and the charge was stayed.

The accused, S.C., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court calculated the total delay, subtracted defence-caused delay (including failure to follow up on disclosure and counsel unavailability for earlier trial dates), and accounted for exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and did not establish that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, especially considering the pandemic's impact on the justice system.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences relating to alleged conduct toward a young complainant while she stayed at his home during school holidays.

The court assessed credibility primarily through the W.(D.) framework, focusing on inconsistencies and corroborating details in the testimony of the complainant, the accused, and family members.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused briefly touched her vagina under the pretext of applying ointment, establishing sexual assault and sexual interference beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court was left with reasonable doubt regarding other alleged sexual touching during a movie and regarding whether pornography shown to the complainant was intended to facilitate sexual exploitation.

The accused was convicted on two counts and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The applicants, charged with trafficking contraband shisha tobacco, brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of multiple general and search warrants.

They argued the warrants were based on insufficient grounds, unreliable confidential informants, and misleading information provided by the affiant.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) for each warrant, applying the Debot criteria to assess the informants' reliability.

The court found that while there were some errors and misleading statements in the ITOs, they were not egregious enough to subvert the process.

After excising the erroneous information, the court concluded that the remaining corroborated evidence provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the issuing justices to grant the warrants.

The application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was dismissed.

The accused, Mr. Singh, was charged with possession of stolen property and dangerous driving.

The court considered two main issues: identification for the dangerous driving charge and knowledge/control for the possession charge.

The Crown had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the identification evidence for dangerous driving unreliable due to its generic nature, the fleeting opportunity for observation, and the delay in the officer's note-taking, leading to an acquittal on that count.

For the possession charge, despite the doctrine of recent possession and the accused providing a false name, the court found no evidence that Mr. Singh had control over the stolen vehicle, as he was merely a passenger.

Consequently, Mr. Singh was acquitted on both counts.

The accused, Robert Stack, brought a Charter challenge to a search warrant issued for his Samsung tablet, alleging misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and overreaching in the request to search cloud-based storage.

The charges against him included communicating with a person under 16 for sexual assault and interference, arising from an undercover police operation on the Grindr app.

The court found that while some statements in the ITO were misleading and were excised, they were not deliberately so.

The court also found that the request to search cloud storage was not overreaching given common technological practices.

Ultimately, the court upheld the warrant, concluding that there were reasonable and probable grounds for its issuance and that the police conduct did not subvert the pre-authorization process.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was arrested on February 5, 2019 and charged with communicating with a person under the age of sixteen for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and sexual interference, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The trial was scheduled to commence approximately 22 months after arrest, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and court suspension of operations constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay.

The court found that 7 months and 10 days of delay could be attributed to the pandemic, reducing net delay to 14 months and 20 days, below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 7,007 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought six and one-half years imprisonment while defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of five and one-half years, granting credit for pre-trial custody at 1.5 times (Summers credit) and an additional 1:1 Duncan credit for lockdown days.

The court considered the defendant's difficult personal circumstances, including an abusive relationship, mental health issues, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as factors warranting a reduction from the typical sentencing range of 6-8 years.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence with 18 months probation, a SOIRA order, a DNA order, and a section 110 weapons prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, including conditions requiring the accused to stay away from the victim, attend counselling, and comply with SOIRA for 10 years.

The court rejected both the Crown's custodial sentence and the defence's discharge request, finding that while incarceration was not warranted, a discharge would be contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence in workplace sexual assault cases.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his four-month-old infant daughter.

The Crown's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of a skull fracture, four rib fractures, and a metatarsal fracture.

The accused initially provided a false explanation for the skull fracture (a fall from a change table) and later suggested to the child's mother that he may have caused injuries through a medical exercise.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove exclusive opportunity and that the medical evidence could not establish when the injuries occurred.

The court found that while the accused did not have exclusive opportunity to cause the injuries, and while the evidence was circumstantial, there remained reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

Two accused were charged with multiple offences related to an illegal online gaming and betting operation, as well as serious firearm offences.

The Crown opposed their release on both secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the charges were serious and involved firearms, the proposed release plans with responsible sureties and strict house arrest conditions adequately addressed public safety concerns.

The court granted bail to both accused, emphasizing that detention is the exception and release the rule, and that the strength of the proposed supervision plan is a relevant factor in the tertiary ground analysis.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his younger sister between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006, when she was approximately 6 years old and he was approximately 15 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code, and invitation to touch for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 152.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The court found that while the complainant may have experienced trauma and repressed memories, her recollection was seriously impaired with significant inconsistencies between her trial testimony, her statement to Brampton police, and her earlier statement to Niagara police.

The accused testified that he never engaged in any sexual activity with his sister.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found that the accused had raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted him of all charges.