Althea Maureen Coke

K.S., a young person, was sentenced after being found guilty of common assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assisting Jacob A. to escape.

She was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The court considered whether the gateway to custody was open and if further custody was warranted, given her 242 days in secure detention.

Based on psychological and presentence reports indicating low risk of reoffending and positive trajectory, the court imposed a 3-year probation order with specific conditions, a 2-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, declining further incarceration.

A young person, K.S., was charged with multiple offences including common assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assisting Jacob A. to escape, and second-degree murder, all stemming from a violent incident at a party.

The court found K.S. guilty of common assault on two individuals (A.D. and F.K.), aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on M.O., and assisting Jacob A. to escape.

However, K.S. was acquitted of second-degree murder due to reasonable doubt regarding her direct participation and intent in the fatal stabbing of F.N. The judgment details K.S.'s role as an accomplice to Jacob's rampage, balancing the Crown's theory of aiding and abetting against the defence's argument of protective behaviour.

A young person charged with second degree murder, accessory after the fact, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and three counts of assault simpliciter arising from stabbings at a party in Toronto on October 31, 2019, was the subject of a Crown application to permit two key eyewitnesses to testify via videoconference under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence opposed the application for two witnesses.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the witnesses' mere preference to testify remotely due to COVID-19 health concerns, without evidence of personal vulnerability or exceptional circumstances, was insufficient to justify departure from the default standard of in-person testimony in a serious criminal matter where credibility was central to the case.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of heroin following a warrantless police search of a public washroom stall.

A police officer, responding to a call about a suspicious person, observed the defendant in a bathroom stall and, suspecting drug use, opened the stall door without a warrant.

The defendant was found with drug paraphernalia and subsequently arrested.

The court found that while the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the washroom stall and the search was unreasonable and violated section 8 of the Charter, the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) after balancing the Grant factors.

The court considered the public health hazard created by drug use in public washrooms and the minimal nature of the police intrusion.

The defendant was found guilty on both charges.