Allison Craig

The applicant was charged with aggravated assault, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging that correctional officers at Toronto South Detention Centre breached his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter by subjecting him to degrading strip search and forced toilet procedures.

The court found Charter breaches but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding alternative remedies adequate.

On the trial proper, the applicant was found guilty of all charges, including aggravated assault, based on DNA evidence linking his knife to the victim's blood and circumstantial evidence establishing his presence and motive.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The information was sworn on March 9, 2022, with trial anticipated to end on October 8, 2025—a total delay of 1,309 days (approximately 43 months).

Applying the Jordan framework, the court calculated net delay of 950 days after deducting 23 days of defence delay and 336 days for exceptional circumstances (Rogers outage and complainant injury).

The net delay of 950 days far exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found systemic issues including delayed disclosure, excessive adjournment following a service outage, a trial coordinator policy requiring rescheduling after re-estimation, and a late-filed DSF application that necessitated further adjournment.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

Praveen Balahumar pleaded guilty to unlawfully being in a dwelling house, sexual assault, and forcible confinement of an 84-year-old victim with advanced dementia.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion aspect, the location of the assault in the victim's home, and the significant emotional impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior record, rehabilitative potential, family support, and restrictive pre-sentence release conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for sexual violence.

A total sentence of six-and-a-half years incarceration was imposed, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 1855 days (approximately five years and one month) to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA, and a firearms prohibition were also made.

The accused, Shan Latif, faced multiple charges including human trafficking, receiving material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, procuring sexual services, uttering threats, and pointing a firearm.

The Crown alleged Latif exploited S.B. and K.B. in the sex trade between January 2020 and January 2021, exercising control and influence over their movements and profiting from their activities.

The defence argued Latif was merely an "errand boy" and that the complainants' testimonies were inconsistent and motivated by bias.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible despite minor inconsistencies.

The judge concluded that Latif recruited and influenced both complainants for the purpose of exploitation, routinely assisting with ads, client texts, arranging accommodations, and receiving a 50% share of earnings.

Latif was found guilty of human trafficking (Counts 1 and 8), receiving material benefit (Counts 2 and 9), advertising sexual services (Count 3), procuring sexual services (Count 4), and uttering threats (Count 5).

He was found not guilty of pointing a firearm (Count 10) due to insufficient proof that the item was an actual firearm.

Submissions on Kienapple stay for Count 4 were requested.

The accused, Cadence Beauparlant, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code, following an incident where a 17-year-old girl was fatally shot by a co-accused using the firearm Beauparlant brought to a party.

The court considered mitigating factors (no prior record at the time of the offence, youth, guilty plea) and numerous aggravating factors (reckless disregard for safety, flight from scene, continued drug trafficking, unrecovered firearm).

The judge emphasized the need for strong denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, noting the alarming increase in such crimes in Hamilton despite judicial calls for stricter sentences.

The court found the accused's rehabilitation prospects poor given his post-offence conduct.

A sentence of seven years in penitentiary, consecutive to existing sentences for drug trafficking, was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a non-communication order.

The defendant, Mike Vukmanovic, pleaded guilty to 16 firearms and ammunition offences, including manufacturing firearms, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession while subject to a prohibition order, and possession without a licence.

A search of his residence revealed a significant cache of weapons, a 3D printer used for manufacturing firearms, and over 3,600 rounds of ammunition.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the volume of untraceable manufactured weapons, disturbing communications indicating a potential intent to use firearms against authority, and improper storage in a residential area.

Mitigating factors included a 10-year gap in his criminal record, his guilty plea, and deplorable conditions experienced during pre-sentence custody.

Applying principles of proportionality, deterrence, and denunciation, the court imposed a total sentence of seven years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders, including a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture, were also imposed.

The offenders, two youthful first-time offenders, were convicted of firearm offences after acquiring a handgun while collecting drug debts.

One offender also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving after a brief police chase.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of 2.5 to 3 years.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and struck it down.

Applying the restraint principle and noting the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and community support, the court imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day for both offenders.

Carl Obermeier was convicted of sexual assault and assault, and found guilty of breaching probation.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation, which was granted.

The court then proceeded to sentence Obermeier, with both Crown and defence agreeing he met dangerous offender criteria and should receive a fixed sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, but disagreeing on the length of the custodial portion.

The court reviewed Obermeier's extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, manslaughter, and assaults on peace officers, noting his antisocial personality disorder and lack of insight.

The court imposed a fixed sentence of 58 months (26 months remnant after pre-sentence credit) for sexual assault, concurrent sentences for assault and breach of probation, and a 10-year long-term supervision order, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, and non-communication orders.

The defendant, charged with firearm offences, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant, arguing a lack of reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises.

The court, applying the Edwards factors holistically, found that the defendant, as a long-term resident with a private room and significant control over the premises, had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the motion to exclude evidence was granted.

The Crown sought an indeterminate sentence for the respondent's breach of a Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) imposed following a dangerous offender designation.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a time-served sentence.

The court rejected the Crown's application for an indeterminate sentence, finding that the respondent's risk to public safety could be managed in the community with appropriate conditions and treatment engagement.

However, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 34 months, accounting for the serious nature of the breach, the respondent's pattern of non-compliance, and his recent positive steps toward rehabilitation.

The defendant was charged with failing to provide a roadside breath sample into an approved screening device (ASD) at a R.I.D.E. spot-check.

The defendant claimed he was unable to provide the sample due to panic attacks that had remained undiagnosed until after the charge was laid.

The Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's defence of reasonable excuse failed because medical evidence did not establish any respiratory impairment, and mere physical discomfort does not constitute a reasonable excuse under the law.

The defendant was found guilty.

Jayme Syring pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired care or control causing bodily harm and one count of failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The offences stemmed from a single-vehicle rollover where Syring, impaired by alcohol, injured his common-law spouse and her three young children, who were not properly secured, and then fled the scene.

The court considered aggravating factors including the serious nature of the offences, the abandonment of injured victims, Syring's lengthy criminal record, and his substance abuse issues.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, and initial steps towards addressing his addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for drinking and driving offences causing bodily harm.

A penitentiary sentence of two years and two months was imposed after credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a three-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown sought to admit pre-death statements made by the deceased, Jean Paul Page, to five individuals in a first-degree murder trial.

The defence challenged the admissibility of these hearsay statements, arguing a lack of reliability and prejudicial effect, particularly concerning alleged drug transactions.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, requiring tests of both necessity and reliability.

The application was granted in part, allowing certain statements related to a rum purchase and the accused's presence at the deceased's apartment, but disallowing statements related to alleged marijuana transactions due to vagueness and lack of reliability, especially from one witness.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought production of third-party police records from the Toronto Police Service concerning five individuals for an alternate suspects application.

The Crown opposed, arguing a lack of likely relevance.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test, finding the applicant met the threshold for likely relevance.

After an in camera inspection, the court ordered the production of relevant and redacted excerpts from two police occurrence reports related to two of the five individuals, subject to strict conditions, while denying production for the others.

The applicant, Zekrollah Walizadah, sought an order under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for first-degree murder.

The pre-screening judge applied the "substantial likelihood" threshold, considering the applicant's character, conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, victim information, and remorse.

Despite positive conduct in custody, the applicant's continued failure to fully accept responsibility for the planned and deliberate nature of the murder and the extreme violence inflicted was a significant negative factor.

The application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously agree to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

The defendant, Raymond Godreau, was convicted on 15 counts related to Fentanyl trafficking and forged prescriptions.

The scheme involved fraudulently obtaining Fentanyl patches using false patient identities, including his vulnerable mother, and then illicitly selling them for profit.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 to 15 years, while the defence proposed 6 to 8 years, arguing for consistency with co-accused's sentences in R. v. Sinclair and R. v. Baks.

The court established a nine-year starting point for such offences, as implicitly affirmed by the Court of Appeal in related cases.

Finding a complete absence of mitigating factors and several aggravating factors, including exploitation of vulnerable individuals, trafficking in maximum strength Fentanyl, a prior drug trafficking record, and the commercial nature of the scheme, the court adjusted the sentence slightly upward.

Godreau was sentenced to ten years in a federal penitentiary, with a credit of 1460 days (four years) for time served, resulting in a remnant sentence of six years.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and an order to provide a DNA sample were also imposed.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious victim on July 25, 2014.

The victim, aged 21, met the 46-year-old accused in a bar and agreed to go to his apartment to use cocaine.

She became intoxicated and passed out.

The accused performed oral sex on her without consent while she was unconscious.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A SOIRA order for ten years, three-year probation with no-contact conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of an 11-year-old child on August 30, 2011.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the child's breasts and vaginal area outside her clothing while she sat on his lap in his garage.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the contact was innocent and that the child voluntarily sat on his lap.

The trial turned on credibility assessments of the complainant, a nine-year-old witness who observed the alleged conduct, and the accused.

The court found the complainant and the child witness credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding him guilty as charged.