Amber Rose Lepchuk

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had shown clinical stability and improved insight following a medication change.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order, but expanded his community pass privileges to Southern Ontario as recommended by the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault causing bodily harm and mischief.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability, has a history of aggressive and violent behaviour.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused's clinical presentation remains unchanged, with treatment-refractory symptoms and prominent thought disorganization.

The Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A detention order with the same terms and conditions as the current disposition was ordered.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

The evidence indicated that the accused continues to struggle with substance use, which exacerbates his psychotic symptoms and leads to non-compliance with medication.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's opinion that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the existing terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The hospital and the accused jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge, while the Attorney General recommended continuing the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, citing an unexplained incident where the accused received over 800 excess Ativan pills and ongoing financial stressors.

The Board rejected the joint recommendation for a Conditional Discharge and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

Based on the testimony of the treating psychiatrist and the accused, the Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial but not permanently so.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to active psychosis and poor insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with added privileges, including indirectly supervised passes and the ability to live in the community in approved accommodation.

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.

The accused was charged with drug and firearm offences following a traffic stop where police found cocaine and fentanyl in his fanny pack, and later found a loaded firearm in the police cruiser where he had been seated.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and a breach of his right to make full answer and defence due to lost sally port video evidence.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the investigative detention and subsequent search were lawful based on officer safety concerns, and the lost video did not cause actual prejudice.

The accused was found guilty of the drug offences but acquitted of the firearm offences, as the court found the police evidence regarding the search of the cruiser unreliable.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 47 months.

After deducting defence-caused delay and delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the court recognized as a discrete exceptional circumstance, the net delay was calculated at 26 months.

As this fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior court cases, and the defence failed to show a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, the application was dismissed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for numerous offences including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The accused suffers from Bipolar Disorder and Cannabis Abuse Disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his propensity for rapid decompensation when non-adherent to treatment or exposed to destabilizers.

The Board ordered the continuation of the accused's conditional discharge, adding an abstinence clause that prohibits drugs and intoxicants but excludes alcohol, as the accused had demonstrated responsible alcohol use.

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, a daycare provider, was charged with manslaughter following the death of a 14-month-old child in her care.

The child suffered a severe skull fracture and subdural hematoma.

The court found that the accused momentarily lost her patience and intentionally assaulted the child, causing the fatal injuries.

Alternatively, the court found that the accused failed to provide the necessaries of life by delaying calling 911 for over an hour after observing the child was unresponsive and limp, which significantly contributed to the child's death.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter.

The accused, a daycare provider, was charged with manslaughter after a 14-month-old child in her care died.

The Crown sought to admit several statements made by the accused to police officers.

The court found the accused was detained by the first responding officer without being advised of her rights, rendering subsequent statements to that officer inadmissible.

Statements made during a videotaped interview and a walk-through with a detective were found voluntary and admissible, except for a phone call to her husband which breached her right to privacy in seeking counsel.

Statements made to a third officer after the child's death were excluded as involuntary due to oppressive interrogation tactics, including ignoring repeated assertions of the right to silence, denying adequate warmth, and exploiting the accused's emotional distress.

Following a voir dire in a criminal prosecution involving online luring allegations, the court considered whether the accused's videotaped police statement was voluntary and admissible.

The accused alleged psychological pressure and relied on the circumstances of arrest and police questioning, but withdrew the Charter application under ss. 10(a) and 10(b).

Applying the confessions rule and the operating mind requirement, the court found no threats, promises, oppressive conditions, or impairment of cognitive capacity sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The videotaped statement was admitted into evidence.

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 officer after giving a false name during an investigation at an airport.

The accused argued that because the officer discovered his true identity within two minutes, there was no actual obstruction.

The court reviewed conflicting case law and held that giving a false name, even if quickly corrected, constitutes an obstruction because it diverted the officer from her duties.

The accused was found guilty.