Amber Rose Lepchuk

The sentencing reasons in this first-degree murder case reflect on the complexity of modern criminal trials, the evolution of the justice system, and the application of what the judge terms "spiritual laws" of truth and justice.

The judge, reflecting on a long career, discusses the facts and evidence that led to the conviction, the character and conduct of the accused, and the broader lessons for society.

The sentence imposed is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

This decision addresses the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to order increased compensation for jurors in lengthy criminal jury trials, above the statutory minimums set by regulation.

Justice Skarica reviews the constitutional and historical importance of jury trials, the inadequacy of current compensation, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to ensure a fair and representative jury.

The court orders increased daily compensation for jurors, as well as improved provision of snacks and meals, to ensure the effective functioning of the jury system and the fair administration of justice.

Nancy White was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference, with the sexual assault convictions conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender, aged 37, engaged in vaginal intercourse and oral sex with the 14-year-old victim, S.B., on two separate occasions in 2020, abusing her position of trust as a family friend.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7-8 years incarceration, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years probation, citing the offender's new baby and health issues.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence in child sexual assault cases, and found the health issues not to be exceptional circumstances.

Distinguishing the case from more severe precedents, the court imposed a global sentence of 3.5 years incarceration, to be served concurrently for the sexual interference convictions.

Additional orders included a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, 20-year SOIRA registration, and a 10-year no-contact order with the victim and his family, with the victim surcharge waived.

Michael Mikhail pleaded guilty to three counts of surreptitiously making visual recordings for a sexual purpose (voyeurism) and one count of distributing an intimate image without consent.

The offences involved multiple unknown female victims at a gym and a former intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature, multiple victims, prolonged period of offending, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, no prior record, family support, and efforts to address mental health.

The court rejected a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence.

A global sentence of 15 months jail was imposed, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, and a DNA order.

The accused, Malik Ahmad, was charged with manslaughter following a physical altercation at a mall that resulted in the death of Mr. Baig due to a catastrophic head injury.

The Crown alleged a consent fight where Ahmad pushed Baig, causing him to fall and hit his head.

The defence argued insufficient evidence of an unlawful act or intent to cause serious bodily harm.

The court found that while an altercation occurred and Baig's death was caused by hitting his head, there was no conclusive evidence to determine what precipitated the fall (e.g., push, punch, slip).

The court also gave less weight to the expert medical testimony regarding certain facial injuries due to a lack of information on medical intervention at the scene.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death unlawfully and acquitted him.

Zamir Simas-Mamani was convicted of choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance and sexual assault.

The court considered fundamental sentencing principles, including proportionality, gravity of the offence, offender responsibility, and the totality principle.

The assault involved repeated choking into unconsciousness, removal of clothing, and various sexual acts without a condom, lasting over an hour.

The court emphasized the brutality and inherent dangerousness of choking as a means to facilitate sexual assault, citing R. v. Lemmon and R. v. Finney.

Aggravating factors included the lack of condom use, the offender's criminal record, the victim's ongoing psychological and physical repercussions, the significant size and strength discrepancy, and the duration of the attack.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years for sexual assault and eight years concurrently for choking, with a two-year credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of six years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and a no-contact order with the victim during custody.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood, impaired driving, and dangerous driving.

The Crown relied on expert toxicology evidence to establish the over 80 charge.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the assumption of no significant consumption of alcohol immediately prior to or during the time of driving.

The court found the over 80 charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt but acquitted on the impaired driving and dangerous driving charges due to insufficient evidence of impairment of ability to operate the vehicle and lack of proof of a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 mg%) following a traffic stop on Super Bowl Sunday 2014.

The sole issue at trial was whether the breath technician's failure to perform a stand-alone self-test, as recommended by the Centre of Forensic Sciences manual, created a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breathalyzer results.

The court found that deviation from recommended procedures does not automatically raise a reasonable doubt about reliability, particularly where the deviation is of no consequence.

The technician's evidence that he operated the instrument according to his training and manufacturer specifications was accepted.

A conviction was entered, followed by sentencing to the minimum mandatory penalties.

The accused was convicted of child luring after engaging in online chat and text message exchanges with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.

The exchanges became progressively sexual and were clearly leading towards an intended live sexual encounter.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the accused sought a conditional sentence or shorter imprisonment.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence of imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA Data-Banking Order, a SOIRA Order, and a prohibition order under section 161 for five years.

The accused was charged with obstructing a police constable by providing false information during a lawful police investigation at an airport.

The accused admitted to giving a false name to the officer but argued that no obstruction occurred because the officer quickly learned his correct identity from another officer within approximately two minutes.

The court found that the accused's false statement did in fact obstruct the officer in the execution of her duty, as the officer was diverted from her investigative duties to check the false name provided.

The court rejected the argument that only prolonged or significant obstruction constitutes the offence, holding that any lie that in fact obstructs police duties satisfies the actus reus requirement.