Andrew Pinto

The appellant, a 20-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after working as a clerk at an illegal 'magic mushroom' dispensary.

He was sentenced to a 60-day conditional sentence order followed by one year of probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by relying on the full 17 kg of drugs seized as an aggravating factor, failing to apply the principle of restraint, and violating the parity principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the aggravating factors and concluding that the sentence fell within the appropriate range for similar offences.

The offender was convicted of possessing over two kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offence occurred nine days after his release on statutory release for prior robbery convictions.

The fentanyl he possessed caused a near-fatal overdose of an acquaintance in his apartment.

The Crown sought a 20-year sentence and delayed parole eligibility, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 16 years in custody, less 1,915 days of pre-sentence credit, finding the large quantity of fentanyl, the near-fatal overdose, and his status as a recent parolee to be significant aggravating factors.

The Crown's request for delayed parole eligibility was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of physical and sexual violence in the complainant's apartment, the court admitted the complainant's police statement and preliminary inquiry testimony after she failed to complete cross-examination because of a mental health crisis.

The court found the complainant's evidence sufficient, together with corroborative circumstantial evidence from responding officers and scene photographs, to prove that the accused assaulted the complainant, removed her underclothes in a sexual context without consent, and confined her in the apartment.

However, the court was left with a reasonable doubt about alleged vaginal and oral penetration, choking, and death threats, in part because of leading police questioning, evidentiary frailties, and alternative reasonable inferences.

The accused was acquitted of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault via choking, and uttering a threat, but convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and assault causing bodily harm as a lesser included offence.

In a judge-alone sexual assault trial, the complainant completed examination-in-chief but refused to complete cross-examination, later left the jurisdictional area, and subsequently attempted suicide after a mental health crisis associated with testifying.

The Crown sought admission of the complainant’s preliminary inquiry evidence, her videotaped police statement, her immediate post-incident statements to housing constables, and the accused’s later utterances captured on police body-worn camera.

Applying the Hart framework for incomplete cross-examination, the principled hearsay approach, and s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code, the court found the complainant was too ill to continue, that necessity and threshold reliability were established, and that admitting the prior evidence was a meaningful ameliorative measure preserving trial fairness.

The court also admitted the complainant’s spontaneous statements as res gestae and admitted the accused’s utterances as constituting the actus reus of the uttering threat charge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in her handling of a s. 276 application regarding prior sexual conversations with the complainant.

The summary conviction appeal court found that while the trial judge correctly subjected the evidence to the s. 276 regime, she erred by dismissing the application at stage 1 and failing to advance it to an admissibility hearing.

The trial judge further erred by maintaining her ruling in the face of shifting evidence at trial, which prevented the appellant from advancing a defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging police facilitated criminal acts.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding it relied on facts not in evidence and mischaracterized the interaction between a confidential source and police.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to investigate and there was no evidence that they induced the applicant, who admitted to already being a drug dealer, to commit the offence.

The applicant, having been convicted of drug trafficking offences, brought an application to re-open his trial prior to sentencing based on fresh evidence.

The applicant discovered that the police source handler involved in the search warrant had received a negative judicial credibility assessment in an unrelated case.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not bear on a decisive issue and would not have affected the result, as cross-examining the source handler on unrelated credibility findings would not have advanced the challenge to the search warrant.

The accused, charged jointly with sexual assault, applied to exclude evidence referencing a third man who was allegedly present during the offence but whose charges were withdrawn.

The applicant argued the evidence would cause moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the evidence—such as explaining the complainant's narrative, the police investigation, and the DNA results—significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also noted it would be impractical to excise the references and that any prejudice could be addressed through jury instructions.

The offender, a 35-year-old first-time offender and single mother, was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and other firearm-related offences after police found two handguns hidden in her home.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects, lack of criminal record, and the severe collateral consequences incarceration would have on her children and elderly mother.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less 18 days to be served in the community, followed by three years of probation.

The offender, a firearms recidivist with a significant criminal record, was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and other firearm-related offences, as well as multiple breaches of release and prohibition orders.

The firearms were found hidden in a residence occupied by nine people, including five children.

The offender engaged in a standoff with police before being arrested.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 8.5 years imprisonment, consisting of 7 years for the index firearm offence and 1.5 years consecutive for the breach offences, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, a young Black man, was stopped for a traffic infraction which evolved into a search under the Cannabis Control Act after the officer smelled burnt cannabis and saw a lighter.

A loaded handgun and drugs were found.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of racial profiling and police theft of his property.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10(a).

The court found minor breaches of s. 10(b) due to a 15-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, post-arrest questioning, and steering the applicant to duty counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The accused, a 22-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the accused's strong rehabilitative potential, family support, and academic success, alongside the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation, with a Summers credit of 72 days for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was convicted of eight offences including possession of multiple controlled substances (fentanyl, cocaine, ketamine, methamphetamine, and GHB) for the purpose of trafficking, assault of a peace officer with intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest, attempt to take a weapon from a peace officer, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the accused's prior criminal record including two previous P4P convictions, his Indigenous background without connection to Indigenous culture (no Gladue report requested), his history of substance addiction, employment, and partial rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, with four years for the P4P fentanyl index offence and one year consecutive for the assault of a peace officer, reduced by twelve months of combined Summers credit and Downes mitigation, resulting in four years remaining to serve.

The accused was charged with possession of over 2 kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after calling 911 to report a drug overdose.

Police entered the accused's apartment without a warrant under exigent circumstances to search for other potential overdose victims and discovered the fentanyl in plain view.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of unlawful detention, unlawful search, and police theft of cash.

The court found technical breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) or stay the proceedings under s. 24(1).

At trial, the court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found him guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and that the respondent insurer was not required to assign a claim number.

The appellant's policy with the respondent had lapsed prior to the motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that anyone involved in an accident in Ontario has SABS coverage and that the respondent was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that 'a particular motor vehicle liability policy' refers to a specific policy, not a generic one.

The court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding page limits and adjudicator expertise.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences occurred during a police search of an illegal bar in Toronto in September 2019.

The offender was 21 years old at the time of the offences and 27 at sentencing.

The Crown sought 7-8 years imprisonment while the defence sought 2 years 9 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years total (3.5 years for the firearm offence and 1 year consecutive for the drug offence), taking into account the offender's difficult background, youth at the time of the offences, and the principle of totality, balanced against the serious nature of the offences and the offender's subsequent criminal record.

In a family law matter involving a 42-year marriage, the applicant husband brought a motion for partition and sale of two jointly owned matrimonial properties in Toronto.

The respondent wife opposed the motion, arguing that granting it would prejudice her family law rights, particularly her claim for exclusive possession, and that the husband's incomplete financial disclosure regarding alleged foreign assets in India warranted delaying the sale.

The wife also raised concerns about her vulnerability as a senior citizen with health challenges and limited income.

The court granted the husband's motion for partition and sale, finding that the wife failed to meet her onus of establishing sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court also dismissed the wife's separate motion for financial disclosure without prejudice, finding it was improperly brought on the same motion day as the partition motion.

The applicant father sought expanded and equal parenting time with the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the child was struggling with developmental challenges including autism spectrum disorder and that maintaining the existing parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court found that the respondent had unreasonably created a new status quo by limiting the applicant's parenting time after separation, contrary to the parties' pre-separation equal arrangement.

The court granted the applicant's motion for equal parenting time, finding that the child's professional reports supported greater contact with both parents and that the applicant's more flexible approach to the child's development aligned better with professional recommendations.

This decision concerns a four-day judge-alone trial in which Tremar Ellis was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained from the proceeds of crime.

The police executed a search warrant at a residence and found Ellis in a basement bedroom with cocaine and cash.

After considering the evidence, including testimony from Ellis and Laura Robinson, the court found reasonable doubt as to Ellis’s knowledge and control of the drugs and cash, concluding that they likely belonged to Tyler Robinson.

Ellis was acquitted of all charges.

The court sentenced Tutshuma (Paul) Munda for eight firearm-related offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm and breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, Mr. Munda’s background, the parties’ sentencing positions, and applicable case law.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years, after reductions for Charter breaches and harsh pre-sentence custody, with further credit for pre-sentence custody.

The decision discusses the sentencing range for prohibited firearm recidivists, the impact of systemic discrimination, and the application of the “jump principle.”