Allan Julius Lobel

The offender was convicted of importing firearms, conspiracy to traffic in firearms, and attempt to possess a firearm after a commercial enterprise involving the importation of three handguns with overcapacity magazines.

The court considered the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's lack of prior record and the significant collateral consequence of deportation.

A global sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant was convicted of importing restricted firearms and prohibited magazines into Canada.

He brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the three-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 103(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violates s. 12 of the Charter.

The court applied the gross disproportionality test, considering reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios, including a licensed gun owner importing parts and a 'smuggler for sport'.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate in these scenarios, given the gravity of the offence and the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

The court sentenced Keron Alvarez for aggravated assault following a two-on-one attack that left the victim, David Shellnutt, with life-threatening injuries.

The decision reviews the facts, procedural history, impact on the victim, Alvarez’s background and criminal record, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found joint liability based on common intention, rejected provocation as a defence, and imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence (less pre-sentence custody credit), with ancillary orders.

The decision discusses the range of sentence for aggravated assault and the principles of sentencing, including rehabilitation, deterrence, and denunciation.

The court sentenced the offender for historical sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter over about three and a half years, beginning when she was 13.

The judge found numerous aggravating factors, including the prolonged abuse, the parental trust relationship, manipulation to keep the offences secret, and the profound long-term harm to the complainant.

Relying on sentencing principles for sexual offences against children and comparable cases, the court held that denunciation and deterrence had to be emphasized.

The offender received a global penitentiary sentence of eight years, with concurrent two-year sentences on the other counts and several ancillary orders.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, was sentenced following his conviction on three firearms-related offences, including unlawful possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The offences came to light after a verbal dispute with his girlfriend, which prompted her to report his possession of a handgun hidden in a lockbox disguised as a book.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option due to the gravity of the offences and the accused's criminal record, imposing a global sentence of three years' imprisonment, less two weeks of credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied to summarily dismiss the defendant's post-conviction Charter application for a stay of proceedings.

The defendant argued that his right to make full answer and defence was breached because the police and child welfare services failed to audio or video record interviews with the complainant in 2004, and certain school records had been routinely destroyed.

The court found that there is no constitutional or common law right requiring the police to record investigative interviews, and the routine destruction of school records did not constitute unacceptable negligence.

Consequently, the court held that the Charter application was manifestly frivolous and granted the Crown's application for summary dismissal.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was found guilty of possession of a loaded, restricted semi-automatic firearm and careless storage.

In this sentencing decision, the court considered aggravating factors such as the prevalence of gun violence in Toronto, the presence of a laser sight, and the risk to younger siblings due to careless storage.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth (18 at the time of arrest), lack of criminal record, extensive family and community support, demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation, and a severe mental health crisis experienced during pre-sentence incarceration due to harsh conditions and inadequate medical response.

The court also considered the impact of anti-Black racism on the accused's life and the significant delay in obtaining an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The judge quantified "Duncan credit" for harsh incarceration conditions and "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions.

The court ultimately imposed a reformatory sentence, finding that a penitentiary term was not required given the unique circumstances, and allowed the sentence to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, faced a six-count indictment for firearm possession and threatening bodily harm.

The court assessed the credibility of the main complainant, noting inconsistencies and potential bias due to her own outstanding criminal charges.

While the complainant's testimony regarding the threats was deemed uncorroborated and insufficient for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, her testimony about the accused's handgun and a unique lockbox was strongly corroborated by police findings during a search.

The court found the accused had constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition, having hidden them after an argument.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the threatening charges but found guilty of the three firearm possession offences.

This decision addresses an application for directions by the accused (B.W.) in a criminal proceeding.

The applicant sought a ruling on whether certain emails in his possession were "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code and permission to use them for cross-examination of the complainant.

The court conducted an in camera review, classifying some emails as records due to their intimate and highly personal nature (e.g., marital difficulties, financial status) and others as not (mundane exchanges).

The application to use the emails deemed "records" was dismissed due to the applicant's non-compliance with procedural requirements, including late service and failure to provide detailed particulars.

The application to use the emails deemed "not records" was granted, subject to a potential s. 276 application for two specific emails and general rules of evidence.

The court also allowed the applicant to challenge the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct evidence, despite an earlier indication of no objection, emphasizing the right to a fair trial.

This criminal trial concerned four counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation against the accused, R.T.L., involving the complainant, A., his former stepdaughter.

The alleged offences occurred between 2004 and 2007, when the complainant was between 13 and 16 years old.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility based on alleged contradictions, generalities, a history of lying (due to prior non-disclosure to authorities), and a motive to lie.

The court meticulously analyzed each defence submission, finding the complainant's explanations for non-disclosure and inconsistencies credible given her age, dependence, and the manipulative nature of the relationship.

This criminal trial concerned the identity of the individual who fatally stabbed the victim during a group assault following a drug theft.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as no direct evidence of the stabbing was presented.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of several youth witnesses, particularly regarding their observations of the accused's possession of a knife before and after the incident, and alleged adoptive admissions.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and unreliability in key witness testimonies, and determined that the circumstantial evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was charged with five firearms-related offences after a search warrant executed on his residence located a restricted semi-automatic handgun and ammunition in a Gucci satchel hanging on his bedroom door.

The prosecution relied on constructive possession, arguing the accused had knowledge and control of the items.

The defence proposed two alternative inferences: that a parent planted the satchel or that it belonged solely to his 12-year-old brother.

The court dismissed both alternative inferences as speculative or unreasonable, finding that the accused, an 18-year-old adult, had knowledge and control of the sophisticated weapon and its accessories given its location and the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty on all five counts.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of trial was 1174 days.

After deducting 400 days of defence delay, the net delay was 774 days (25.4 months), which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and the complexity of the case.

The court found insufficient evidence to attribute the delay to COVID-19 or case complexity, noting the Crown took no steps to mitigate the delay.

The application was granted, and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The applicant, J.L., sought leave to introduce electronic records and cross-examine the complainant, B.M., regarding their contents, as well as to testify about them, pursuant to section 278.94 of the Criminal Code.

The records included Facebook messages from November 2015 suggesting prior sexual activity, messages from April 2016 discussing sleeping arrangements and having a flirtatious tone before the alleged assault, and messages from April 2016 (the day after the alleged assault) and later, which discussed the sexual encounter and the complainant's departure.

The Crown and complainant's counsel objected to admissibility.

The court found the November 2015 messages relevant as a specific instance of sexual activity and potentially contradictory to the complainant's police statement.

The April 2016 pre-assault messages were found relevant for impeachment value and to provide context for the complainant's decision to come to the applicant's residence.

The April 2016 post-assault messages were deemed relevant as a potential prior inconsistent statement regarding the complainant's departure.

The court applied the factors under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the records were not being adduced for prohibited inferences, had probative value, were necessary for full answer and defence, and would not prejudice the administration of justice or have a chilling effect.

All three sets of communications were admitted as evidence, and the applicant was permitted to cross-examine the complainant and testify regarding them.

The applicant, Cyprian Osei, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of his s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 1,227 days (approx. 40 months), exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Courts.

The court deducted 76 days for defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 1,151 days (38.35 months).

While the COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional circumstance, the court found the Crown was responsible for 15 days of delay within this period.

After deducting the exceptional circumstance period (283 days minus 15 days of Crown delay), the remaining delay was 938 days (31.2 months), still exceeding the Jordan ceiling.

The court found the delay unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, B.G., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose of a person under 14, inviting a person under 14 to touch him for a sexual purpose, and uttering a threat to cause death, all against his daughter, N. The court imposed an 8-year custodial sentence, with all counts served concurrently, after considering aggravating factors such as the position of trust, the young age of the victim, the prolonged and intrusive nature of the abuse, physical violence, and death threats.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and employment history.

Ancillary orders for DNA, lifetime Section 109 and SOIRA orders, and a Section 161 prohibition were also issued.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, which typically attract a penitentiary sentence, the court found exceptional circumstances.

The offender demonstrated extraordinary rehabilitation, securing employment, volunteering extensively, and becoming a role model for at-risk youth.

The court imposed a two-year conditional sentence, finding that the offender's service in the community would not endanger public safety and that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved through strict conditions, including house arrest.

This is a preliminary inquiry judgment determining whether sufficient evidence exists to commit the accused to trial on firearm-related offences.

The Crown charged both accused with ten joint firearm offences, with the accused Taitt facing two additional charges of criminal negligence.

The court applied the established test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there is any admissible evidence capable of supporting each essential element of the offences.

The court committed both accused to trial on counts involving possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and being occupants of a motor vehicle knowing a firearm was present.

The court discharged both accused on counts alleging discharge of a firearm with intent to wound specific individuals, finding insufficient evidence of the specific intent required.

The court committed only Taitt to trial on the criminal negligence charge.

The accused brought a Charter s. 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that he was not tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets presumptive ceilings of 18 months for Provincial Court and 30 months for Superior Court.

After calculating the overall delay of 40 months and 2 weeks from the charge date to the anticipated completion of trial and sentencing, the court deducted 19 months of defence delay and 7 months of exceptional circumstances (death of accused's father and illness of defence counsel).

The remaining delay of 14 months and 1 week fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and dismissed the application.