Alonzo Abbey

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

During a preliminary inquiry, a special constable used excessive force by kneeing the offender in the face while he was being escorted to an isolation cell.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of four years' imprisonment.

After applying enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (triple-bunking) and a six-month reduction for the state misconduct, the sentence was reduced to time served.

The offender, an airport baggage handler, was found guilty by a jury of importing and possessing for the purpose of trafficking nine kilograms of cocaine and importing cannabis.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence due to the significant breach of trust, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or six to seven years, citing the offender's experience of anti-Black racism and collateral immigration consequences.

The court found that the offender's status as a 'corrupt insider' warranted a sentence above the usual range for couriers.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including the offender's good character and the connection between his offending and anti-Black racism, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years' imprisonment.

This decision concerns a four-day judge-alone trial in which Tremar Ellis was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained from the proceeds of crime.

The police executed a search warrant at a residence and found Ellis in a basement bedroom with cocaine and cash.

After considering the evidence, including testimony from Ellis and Laura Robinson, the court found reasonable doubt as to Ellis’s knowledge and control of the drugs and cash, concluding that they likely belonged to Tyler Robinson.

Ellis was acquitted of all charges.

The court sentenced Milton Urgiles to five years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death, following the fatal crash of a commercial truck with unroadworthy tires.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles and authorities, emphasizing the high degree of moral blameworthiness and the need for denunciation and deterrence in workplace safety offences.

The applicant, John Culmer, brought a Charter motion challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, search incident to arrest, breaches of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)), right to silence (s. 7), and arbitrary detention (s. 9) related to overholding for a bail hearing.

The court found the arrest and search incident to arrest lawful, based on reasonable and probable grounds that the applicant was involved in cannabis exportation.

It found that Border Services Officer McLaren breached the applicant's s. 7 and s. 10 Charter rights by questioning him without proper caution and full rights to counsel, and excluded the evidence elicited from this questioning.

However, the court found no breach of the right to counsel of choice and no arbitrary detention regarding the overholding for a bail hearing, citing the public interest due to the applicant's foreign national status and serious charges.

This criminal trial addressed whether four adapted flare pen launchers and associated ammunition found in the defendant's possession constituted "firearms" under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence presented expert testimony regarding the devices' capability to cause serious bodily injury or death and whether they qualified as "barrelled weapons." The court, preferring the defence expert's more experienced opinion, found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the devices were capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, primarily due to the absence of velocity testing and physical indicators of significant energy loss during firing.

Consequently, the devices were not classified as firearms, and the defendant was acquitted of the firearm-related charges.

The accused, a supervisor at an excavating company, was charged with criminal negligence causing death after a driver was killed in a dump truck collision.

The collision occurred when the truck's front left tire, which was severely worn and bald, exploded.

The day before the collision, the driver had texted the accused about a steering issue, but the accused failed to have the truck inspected by a mechanic and directed the driver to continue operating it.

The court found that the accused had the authority to direct the driver's work, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm, and showed a wanton and reckless disregard for the driver's life.

The accused was found guilty.

This decision concerns an annual sentence review under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for M.L., who had previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) sentence.

M.L. sought release under conditional supervision, arguing significant progress in rehabilitation despite being transferred to an adult correctional facility where appropriate youth programming was unavailable.

The Crown sought to confirm the original sentence.

The court found that M.L. had met the evidentiary burden to justify a change in sentence, demonstrating exceptional commitment to rehabilitation despite challenging circumstances.

The court ordered M.L.'s release from custody to conditional supervision, emphasizing that this decision best advanced both the young person's needs and the long-term protection of society through rehabilitation, and imposed strict conditions to ensure accountability and continued progress.

The offender, Ramez Cheema, pleaded guilty to possessing two prohibited sawed-off shotguns with readily accessible ammunition.

The firearms were found in his bedroom within his parents' home, exposing younger siblings to risk.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and unsafe storage of the firearms, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first offender status, late guilty plea, employment, and family support.

The Crown sought 24 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence due to the serious nature of the offence and rising gun crime.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months less one day in a provincial reformatory, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The Defendant, Jeremiah Campbell, applied to withdraw his guilty plea for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, entered prior to sentencing.

The prosecution opposed the application.

The court, applying the principles that a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, found that while the plea was unequivocal and informed, and the defendant's testimony was largely unconvincing, a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea were maintained.

The court exercised its residual discretion, considering the defendant's age, first-offender status, potential penitentiary sentence, existence of triable Charter issues, and the defendant's belief in his factual innocence.

The application to strike the guilty plea was granted.

The three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for the stabbing death of a 22-year-old victim.

The sentencing judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders were the aggressors who tracked down the victim for revenge after an earlier altercation where the victim had cut the principal offender with a knife.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an 'aggravated manslaughter' sentence range, finding the earlier provocation mitigated the offenders' moral blameworthiness.

After applying significant credit for pre-trial custody, harsh jail conditions including triple bunking, and strict bail conditions, the principal offender was sentenced to a further 14 months, the second offender to 6.5 months, and the third offender to time served.

The defendant brought a Charter application under s. 24(1) alleging violations of ss. 7, 9, and 11(e) due to an adjournment of his bail hearing, which resulted in two additional nights in custody.

The court found that while it was unfortunate the bail hearing could not be accommodated on the initial date, no constitutional rights were abrogated or violated.

The court considered factors such as the lack of evidence that the court could have otherwise accommodated the hearing, the fact that the prosecution did not request the adjournment, the parties' efforts to accommodate, the defendant's prior adjournment requests, his choice to forego an earlier alternative date, and the absence of breaches of ss. 503 or 516 of the Criminal Code.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was found asleep in a stolen vehicle ten hours after it was taken in an armed robbery by four masked men.

He was in possession of a loaded prohibited handgun.

He pleaded guilty to the firearm offences but proceeded to trial on the robbery charges.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial.

Applying the Villaroman framework, the court found that the circumstantial evidence, including discrepancies in physical descriptions and clothing, failed to negate the reasonable alternative inference that the accused came into possession of the stolen vehicle after the robbery.

The accused was acquitted of the robbery charges but convicted of the firearm offences.

During a criminal trial for a stabbing, the Crown applied under section 9.2 of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness on a prior inconsistent statement.

The witness testified at trial that one of the accused attempted to break up the fight, which contradicted his earlier police statement and preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court granted the application, finding the Crown could not have been expected to lead this evidence in-chief.

However, the court restricted the Crown from questioning the witness about post-offence phone calls with the accused, ruling that such questions would improperly suggest consciousness of guilt and be highly prejudicial.

Following a trial where the accused was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault, the court considered whether entering convictions on both counts would violate the rule against multiple convictions.

The court found that the two assaults constituted a single transaction with sufficient factual and legal nexus.

On the joint position of the parties, the court entered a conviction on the first count and conditionally stayed the second count pursuant to the Kienapple rule.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cleaner working in a downtown concourse.

The accused admitted to committing two common assaults but denied they were sexual in nature.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found the complainant's evidence reliable.

Applying cross-count similar fact reasoning, the court found that the first assault was intentionally sexual and that the second assault, occurring moments later, was also objectively sexual in nature.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant for firearms, alleging deficiencies in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and lack of reasonable grounds.

The Crown cross-applied to rely on redacted confidential informant (CI) information under the Garofoli step six procedure.

The court reviewed the ITO, including the judicially summarized redacted material, and found sufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The applicant, facing 14 charges including assault with a weapon and uttering death threats, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued there was a material change in circumstances, including a new affidavit from the complainant and a proposed Charter challenge, and that the preliminary inquiry judge erred by failing to consider his status as a Black male under s. 493.2.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, no error of law by the preliminary inquiry judge, and that the decision to detain on the secondary ground was not clearly inappropriate given the applicant's history of breaching a no-contact order and evidence of witness tampering.

The applicants, Rebecca Paredes and Matthew Stewart, faced drug and firearms charges.

They brought Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence (a loaded firearm and drugs) seized incident to their arrest.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, leading to arbitrary detention (s. 9 breach).

It also found a s. 10(b) breach for Paredes due to delayed access to counsel, but not for Stewart.

The s. 8 strip search claim for Paredes was dismissed.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that the serious s. 9 breach and its significant impact on the applicants' liberty, coupled with the police conduct, warranted the exclusion of the evidence to maintain the administration of justice's reputation, despite the societal interest in a trial on the merits for serious charges.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an encounter arranged through Instagram, the court acquitted the accused on all eleven counts, including personating a peace officer, multiple firearms offences, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault by threat of weapon, and robbery.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court held that the complainant’s evidence was not credible or reliable on material points, particularly her false account that the meeting concerned the sale of a cell phone rather than paid sexual services.

The accused’s police statement, while problematic in some respects, was accepted in part and otherwise raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the Crown had not proved that the accused took the complainant’s phone or intentionally pointed or used the pellet gun in the manner alleged.