Andrew Pilla

The accused, Alexander Campbell and Tyler Josling, were charged with manslaughter after restraining Frank Harbalis during a violent incident at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the force used, including a chokehold, was excessive and outside the scope of lawful self-defence or defence of others.

The court found that while a brief chokehold was applied, the actions of the accused were not unreasonable in the circumstances, given the sudden and dangerous situation.

Both were acquitted.

The defendant, Sasikaran Thanapalasingam, was charged with first-degree murder of his estranged wife, Tharshika Jeganathan.

The murder involved a brutal machete attack, captured on video, following a history of domestic violence, bail breaches, and explicit threats.

The defence argued for a conviction of second-degree murder, asserting that the defendant's capacity to form the requisite intent was impaired by alcohol intoxication.

The court found the murder to be planned and deliberate, rejecting the intoxication defence by concluding that the defendant was not incapacitated to an appreciable degree at the time of the offence, despite later showing signs of severe intoxication.

The court emphasized the defendant's clear intent, planning, and physical coordination during the attack, finding him guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assaults committed in 1981 and 1993, both involving the use of firearms and violence against strangers.

DNA evidence from preserved forensic samples led to identification decades later while the accused was incarcerated in the United States for other offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the age of one complainant, the use of weapons, home invasion, extensive criminal history, and high risk of re‑offending.

After assessing parity with comparable authorities and applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, the court determined appropriate consecutive sentences of 11 and 13 years before reductions.

Applying the totality principle and granting limited credit for cooperation with police, the court reduced the overall sentence to a global term of 20 years, to commence after completion of the accused’s American sentence.

The accused was charged with first degree murder arising from a fatal shooting in a Toronto bar.

The court ruled on several pre-trial evidentiary motions, including the admissibility of motive evidence, post‑offence conduct, hearsay statements of the deceased, and lay opinion recognition evidence based on surveillance footage.

Evidence of animus between the accused and the deceased and evidence of the accused’s alleged attempt to disguise his appearance after the offence were admitted as relevant circumstantial evidence.

Lay opinion identification evidence from a witness familiar with the accused was also admitted under the Leaney recognition rule.

However, hearsay statements attributed to the deceased describing a prior altercation were excluded for lack of threshold reliability under the principled hearsay exception.

A disclosure motion involving alleged alternate suspects and informant privilege was deferred pending an in camera and ex parte hearing.

The offender was sentenced for criminal negligence causing death and five counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after a high-speed police chase in a stolen vehicle resulted in a devastating collision.

The offender had an extensive criminal record of 168 prior convictions, including multiple prior police chases and driving prohibitions.

The court found the offender to be a recalcitrant recidivist with no prospects for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing the need to protect the public, denounce the conduct, and deter others, the court imposed a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The accused fled from police in a stolen van at high speeds on city streets.

After running a red light and causing a minor collision, he continued to flee, eventually driving the wrong way into oncoming lanes and striking a vehicle making a left turn.

The collision resulted in one death and bodily harm to five others.

The court found the accused's driving was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, and that the risks of death and bodily harm were foreseeable.

The accused was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm.