Andrew Cox

The defendant, Kelsey Brennan, facing charges including Assault With a Weapon, sought to admit her affidavit as testimony in chief under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

She argued necessity due to her epilepsy, which she claimed was triggered by stress, making viva voce testimony difficult.

The Crown opposed, citing concerns about assessing evidence and setting precedent.

The court granted the application, finding that necessity was met under a relaxed standard for defence applications, and procedural reliability was satisfied by her availability for cross-examination.

The accused, Mr. Sills, brought a Charter application to exclude firearms evidence seized from his multi-unit dwelling.

The search warrant, targeting another individual (Mr. Fisher) in a different unit, was found to be facially overbroad as it authorized a search of the entire building despite police knowledge of its multi-unit nature and an undertaking to search only Mr. Fisher's areas.

The court found a serious Section 8 Charter breach (unreasonable search and seizure) and a minimal Section 10(b) breach (delay in right to counsel).

The search was not justified by exigent circumstances under CDSA s. 11(7).

The court excluded the evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in one's home and the seriousness of police disregard for established rules, particularly concerning lower-income housing.

The applicant sought a stay of firearms charges under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and co-accused counsel's medical emergency.

The court found the net delay was below the presumptive ceiling and dismissed the application, concluding the delay was not unreasonable.

The accused, John Fisher, was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a stabbing incident in a Toronto sports bar.

The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding identity and the location of the injury, relying on surveillance video.

In sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors including the unprovoked and vicious nature of the attack, the use of a concealed knife, the significant injury to the victim, and the accused's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included a troubled childhood, ongoing mental health issues (depression, borderline personality disorder), alcohol and substance abuse, and time spent on bail with a curfew.

The Crown sought 4.5 years imprisonment, while the defense sought 12 months (time served).

The court imposed a global sentence of three years and six months' incarceration, with credit for presentence custody.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault and weapons offences, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 43 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and the assigned Crown's illness were exceptional circumstances.

The court deducted 14.5 months for pandemic-related delays and 2 months for the Crown's illness, bringing the net delay to 26.5 months.

As the remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling and this was not a clear case for a stay, the application was dismissed.

The accused was tried for aggravated assault and weapons offences following a stabbing at a sports bar.

The incident was captured on surveillance video, showing a man wearing a Nirvana baseball cap striking the victim in the face with a knife-like object.

The victim, who was unavailable for trial, had testified at the preliminary inquiry that he was stabbed by a different person on the stairs.

The court admitted the victim's preliminary inquiry evidence but rejected it as implausible and contradicted by the video.

The court also admitted prior acquaintance recognition evidence from a police officer who identified the accused as the man in the video.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the attacker and found him guilty on all counts.

Peter Burrill pleaded guilty to ten criminal charges, including theft, possession of break-in instruments, assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and robbery.

The Crown sought an 11-month sentence, while the defence proposed a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's significant criminal record, and the Gladue principles, noting his displacement from Indigenous heritage due to the Sixties Scoop.

The court also addressed the impact of punitive pre-trial detention conditions and the Ministry's policy allowing intermittent sentences to be served at home via temporary absence permits (TAP).

The court ultimately imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for robbery and suspended sentences with two years' probation for the other counts, along with a lifetime section 109 order and a DNA order.

The accused, Curtis Beckles, was tried on two counts of failing to comply with a probation order by not reporting as directed.

The Crown argued the accused knowingly or recklessly breached the order.

The defence contended that transportation issues and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable excuse or negated mens rea.

The court applied the subjective mens rea standard from R. v. Zora, finding that the Crown proved the accused's knowledge and intent.

The court dismissed the "reasonable excuse" defence, noting a lack of evidentiary support for the claims, and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and excessive force by police, seeking exclusion of evidence (a firearm) or a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for investigative detention to prevent interference with a search warrant execution.

It was determined that no search occurred as the firearm fell from the applicant during a lawful struggle to gain control.

The court also found that rights to counsel were provided as soon as reasonable, and the force used (a "football tackle" and subsequent strikes) was objectively reasonable given the immediate danger posed by an unsecured firearm and the applicant's resistance.

Kal Tekolla pleaded guilty to simple possession of Fentanyl and Oxycodone, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The incident involved drug-related activities in a densely populated community area with children present.

The Crown sought a sentence of approximately three years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the loaded firearm, the presence of drugs and drug trafficking paraphernalia, the dangerous location, and the accused's resistance to arrest.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, positive rehabilitative efforts while on bail, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as paramount principles for firearms and drug offences.

A global sentence of 30 months was determined, reduced to 26 months after credits for time spent on house arrest and for serving time during the pandemic.

Deidre Martin was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and weapons dangerous after stabbing her boyfriend, Alejandro Velez.

Martin claimed self-defence, alleging Velez assaulted and sexually assaulted her.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, the scene evidence, and the three components of self-defence (trigger, motive, and response) under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found significant credibility concerns with Velez's testimony and that the scene evidence was inconsistent with his account but consistent with Martin's.

Despite inconsistencies in Martin's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt that Velez did not assault and sexually assault her, and that Martin acted with a defensive purpose.

While the proportionality of Martin's response (using a hunting knife and inflicting serious wounds) raised concerns, the court considered her vulnerability, history of domestic violence, and the spontaneous nature of the act.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Martin was found not guilty on all charges.

The applicant, facing charges including fraud, aggravated assault, and carrying a concealed weapon, sought a bail review following his detention on the secondary ground.

He argued that the withdrawal of certain driving charges, the proposal of two new sureties, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted material changes in circumstance.

The court found that while the withdrawal of charges and the pandemic's impact on correctional facilities were material changes, the pandemic did not personally affect the applicant's health.

The court ultimately denied the application, finding the proposed supervision plan inadequate to mitigate the substantial likelihood that the applicant would commit further offences.

The offender, a transgender refugee claimant from Guatemala, was convicted of arson causing damage to property after setting a fire in her Toronto Community Housing apartment.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of six months less a day to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court held that while collateral immigration consequences must be considered, they cannot artificially skew a sentence below the appropriate range.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence (satisfied by pre-sentence custody), two years of probation, and a restitution order of $15,809.11.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief endangering life following a fire on the stovetop of her rental apartment.

The court found that the physical evidence, including fuel deliberately placed under a burner, proved the fire was intentionally set.

The accused was found guilty of arson and the included offence of mischief to property, but acquitted of mischief endangering life as the Crown failed to prove the small, contained fire posed an actual danger to human life.