Andrew Gibbons

The accused was convicted of second-degree murder for striking and driving over the victim with his vehicle following a confrontation outside an after-hours bar in Toronto on February 5, 2023.

The Crown had alleged planned and deliberate first-degree murder, but the jury rejected this theory.

The court imposed a life sentence with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years.

The decision addresses the sentencing principles applicable to second-degree murder, the consideration of a sentencing circle request (which was dismissed), aggravating factors including the use of a vehicle as a weapon in a public space, and mitigating factors including the accused's Indigenous background, youth, lack of criminal record, and the jury's unanimous recommendation for the minimum 10-year ineligibility period.

This decision addresses the jurisdictional limits of the Ontario Court of Justice to appoint state-funded counsel for complainants/respondents in sexual offence proceedings under section 278 of the Criminal Code.

The court clarifies that while complainants/respondents have a statutory right to standing and to be represented by counsel, the Criminal Code does not authorize courts to appoint state-funded counsel for them.

The judge distinguishes this from appointments under section 486.3 and amicus curiae appointments, which have clear statutory or inherent jurisdictional bases.

The ruling emphasizes that state-funded counsel appointments require either explicit statutory authority or a Charter-based application following the Rowbotham procedure.

The court dismisses the application for an additional order appointing counsel, affirming the importance of counsel representation but underscoring the absence of jurisdiction to make such appointments automatically.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and five counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm after driving at high speeds through a red light in downtown Toronto while intoxicated.

The collision killed one pedestrian and severely injured five others.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years' imprisonment for the death and 4 years concurrent for the bodily harm counts, minus 1,135 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

A 12-year driving prohibition was also imposed.

This criminal trial concerned an allegation of sexual assault by G.P. against E.C. at a New Year's Eve party.

The case primarily hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, the accused, and a third witness (D.T.), all of whom were intoxicated to varying degrees.

The court rejected the accused's denial, found the third witness credible, and accepted the complainant's testimony, which was corroborated by the accused's admission to the third witness.

The court found the accused guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with judicial interim release conditions (curfew and weapons prohibition) after a traffic stop.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the accused's detention became arbitrary, his s. 10(a) rights were violated by delayed notification of reasons for detention, and his s. 10(b) rights were violated by delayed access to counsel and incomplete information.

The search of his person and wallet was also found to be illegal.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court excluded the seized weapons due to serious police misconduct and significant impact on the accused's Charter rights, leading to a finding of not guilty on the weapons charge.

The curfew charge was dismissed earlier by the Crown.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a lookout in a planned armed robbery of a drug dealer, during which an accomplice shot and killed the victim.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought less than 5 years.

The court considered the offender's lower level of culpability (objective foresight of risk), his early guilty plea, remorse, and mental health challenges.

The court also applied significant mitigation for the harsh conditions of his presentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and the collateral consequences of his vulnerability to assault in custody due to his plea.

The offender was sentenced to 6.5 years' imprisonment before statutory credit.

The applicant, charged with two counts of first-degree murder and two firearms offences following a nightclub shooting, brought a motion for directed verdicts at the close of the Crown's case.

The applicant argued there was no evidence of planning and deliberation for the intended target, and no basis for liability regarding the unintended victims.

The court agreed there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, directing verdicts of second-degree murder on the homicide counts.

However, the court found sufficient evidence of co-principal liability and transferred intent to leave the charges relating to the unintended victims to the jury.

The accused, Bill Thanis, was charged with three counts of uttering threats to cause death and one count of criminal harassment, arising from his interactions with Tax Court of Canada and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) employees.

The court found that the alleged threats, including statements about a "killing spree" and "shooting people in the streets," did not objectively constitute a threat or were not directed at an "ascertainable group" as required by law.

The criminal harassment charge failed because the alleged threatening conduct was not proven to be a threat, and there was no evidence the complainant felt "harassed" in the legal sense.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood within two hours of ceasing to operate the vehicle, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle involved in a collision on Dundas Street West in Toronto.

Breath samples taken approximately two hours after the collision showed readings of 150 mg and 130 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown established that the defendant occupied the driver's seat and attempted to start the vehicle before police arrived.

The court found the statutory presumption of operation applied and was not rebutted.

The court also found, in the alternative, that actual care or control was established based on the defendant's position in the driver's seat, her attempt to start the vehicle, and the dangerous circumstances created by the vehicle blocking traffic.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, "Over 80," and theft under.

The central issue was whether Charter violations surrounding the delay in obtaining an approved screening device (ASD) and the police conduct during the investigation warranted exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), arising from an unjustified delay in making the ASD demand, unlawful handcuffing, and failure to advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The court excluded the breath samples and admissions, resulting in acquittals on both driving offences.

The theft charge was conceded by the Crown and dismissed.