Andrew Pinto

Following a jury trial, the offender was convicted of human trafficking, receiving a benefit from sexual services and human trafficking, assault, and cocaine trafficking, all involving his wife.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence, while the Defence proposed 42 months.

The court applied the principles of sentencing, including the Tang/Miller factors, and considered aggravating factors such as abuse of an intimate partner, breach of trust, using drugs to maintain exploitation, and the devastating impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included a challenging personal background and potential for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years, with sentences for the related offences running concurrently, and applied 6 months of credit for pre-sentence house arrest, resulting in a net sentence of 8.5 years imprisonment.

Ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition, communication ban, and forfeiture were also made.

This was a ten-day judge-alone criminal trial where the defendant, D.F., faced 28 counts of physical and sexual assault against his former partner, C.L., alleged to have occurred between 2008 and 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting that the complainant fabricated the allegations in the context of a family law dispute, particularly after learning he had a new partner.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be neither credible nor reliable, citing numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and the manipulation of text messages to falsely imply admissions from the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found credible and reliable.

The court dismissed all charges, concluding that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating belief in the defendant's account.

Brendan Bananish pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown sought a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation and an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The defence opposed the LTO designation and sought a shorter sentence.

The court designated Bananish an LTO, imposed a global penitentiary sentence of seven years and three months (with 63 months credit for pre-sentence custody), and ordered an eight-year Long-Term Supervision Order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court considered Bananish's extensive criminal record, history of intimate partner violence, psychiatric diagnoses (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, severe substance use disorder), and repeated breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging his Indigenous background and related systemic factors.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving historical allegations of sexual assault and incest against a child family member, the prosecution relied solely on the complainant's testimony.

The court reviewed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the approach to credibility where an adult testifies about childhood events, and the principle that corroboration is not legally required.

The court found the complainant's evidence generic, lacking in detail and temporal specificity, and further found significant reliability and credibility concerns arising from her memory gaps, evasiveness, and contradiction regarding alleged phone evidence.

Those concerns left the court unable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The appellant, Elijah McGibbon, appealed a one-year custodial sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

The appeal was based on three grounds: improper admission of a victim impact statement, error in applying the Proulx analysis for a conditional sentence, and an unfit sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge did not err in considering the victim impact statement, properly weighed sentencing principles including rehabilitation and deterrence, and imposed a fit sentence given the gravity of the offence.

This 5-day judge-alone criminal trial concerned charges against the accused, S.S., for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and making sexually explicit material available to his biological daughter, B, when she was between 5 and 8 years old.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming B fabricated them to spend more time with her mother, and that her knowledge of sexual acts came from accidentally observing him masturbating or viewing pornography on his phone.

The court found the complainant's testimony compelling, logical, and detailed, noting that piecemeal disclosure did not undermine her credibility.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding his explanations improbable and inconsistent.

S.S. was found guilty on all three counts.

Uygar Kaan Celenk was convicted by a jury of possession of 1.35 kg of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and two firearm offences (possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm without a license/registration).

The Crown sought a 15-year prison sentence, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and the presence of a loaded prohibited firearm in a commercial vehicle, and mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, first-time offender status, rehabilitative potential, and childhood trauma.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, balanced with rehabilitation and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, with 1 year of credit for pre-trial custody and other factors, resulting in a remaining sentence of 12 years.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearm prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant, Can Imer, appealed his conviction for "80 and over" (driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood).

The appeal raised three grounds related to alleged breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel: failure to immediately ask if he wished to contact counsel, insufficient efforts by police to contact his counsel of choice, and being "funneled" to duty counsel.

The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the s. 10(b) rights were not breached, distinguishing the facts from cases where breaches were found due to police steering or insufficient efforts.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence (breath samples) would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the moderate seriousness of any misconduct, low impact on the accused's rights, and society's vital interest in combatting drinking and driving.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The total delay was 1,407 days (46 months and 7 days), exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court found the primary cause of delay was the Crown/police's failure to timely provide cellphone extraction reports or return the applicant's phone, which was crucial for the defence.

Despite some periods of defence unavailability, the court determined the state delay was significant and the defence acted reasonably.

The application was granted, and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

This judge-alone trial addressed whether the defendant possessed fentanyl for trafficking purposes.

The defendant admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime but denied knowing the 100 pills contained fentanyl, asserting he believed them to be Percocet for personal use due to an addiction.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's knowledge of the pills' fentanyl content and his intent to traffic them, based on expert testimony and the defendant's narrative of personal use.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of fentanyl trafficking but convicted of simple possession of fentanyl, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused, Beum Kim, was convicted after a judge-alone trial of aggravated assault, sexual assault with a weapon, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threatening death, extortion, and fraud under $5,000.

The offences involved the torture and sexual assault of the complainant over 33 hours.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the Defence proposed a 4-year global sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutality of the acts and reoffending while on bail, and mitigating factors, such as pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, less 6 months for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit, resulting in 8.5 years further custody.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, SOIRA registration for 20 years, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by granting only a 20-minute adjournment after the Crown made late disclosure of a photograph and text messages during the complainant's cross-examination.

The Superior Court found that while the trial judge's adjournment decision was based on improper principles and a faulty factual foundation, the defence was not prejudiced.

The defence was able to fully cross-examine the complainant on the new evidence, meaning no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was dismissed under the curative proviso.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage characterized by family violence and conflict.

The respondent mother sought to relocate with the parties' 5-year-old child to New Brunswick, while the applicant father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making in Toronto.

The court denied the relocation, finding it was not in the child's best interests as it would sever his relationship with the father and paternal grandmother.

The court ordered a 2/2/3 equal parenting time schedule and divided decision-making responsibility.

The court also resolved financial issues, imputing a minimum wage income to the respondent, setting the applicant's income, and ordering an equalization payment.

The respondent's claim for damages for the tort of family violence was deferred pending appellate guidance.

This decision addresses a motion to change brought by the respondent, Craig, to terminate child and spousal support obligations following his retirement, and a cross-motion by the applicant, Victoria, to increase spousal support and continue child support.

The court found Craig's retirement at age 64 to be reasonable and a material change in circumstances, despite Victoria's arguments that it was premature.

The court also acknowledged the termination of Victoria's long-term disability benefits as a material change.

Ultimately, spousal support for Victoria was terminated effective December 31, 2021, due to her significant net worth and perceived improvident financial management, emphasizing the objective of self-sufficiency.

Child support for Natalie was continued until August 31, 2023, for her graduate studies, but not beyond, and specific s. 7 expenses were capped and apportioned based on previous orders.

The parties separated after a 25-year traditional marriage.

The central issue at trial was the equalization of net family properties, specifically the respondent's claim to exclude $894,000 as funds traceable to gifts from his late father.

The court rejected the exclusion claim, finding the respondent concocted the gift letters and failed to trace the funds.

The court also determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, declining to impute the applicant's income to her previous banking salary due to health and educational limitations.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support obligations were determined for the adult children.

The applicant sought over $1 million in costs on a full-indemnity basis following a 12-day trial where she was largely successful.

The respondent conceded costs but argued for a lower amount of $350,000.

The court found the respondent engaged in bad faith and unreasonable conduct, including fraudulent transfer of shares and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court adjusted the applicant's requested costs for duplicative and excessive billing by some firms but ultimately awarded $950,000, finding it proportionate and reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the complexity of the litigation.

The father initiated an application for the return of the child to Qatar but subsequently abandoned the proceedings.

The mother proceeded with an uncontested trial seeking decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a restraining order.

The court found it had jurisdiction as the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The court refused to recognize a Qatari divorce obtained by the father without notice to the mother.

The court imputed an annual income of $400,000 to the father due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The mother was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, supervised parenting time for the father, child support, spousal support, an equalization payment of over $1.4 million, a freezing order on the father's assets, and a restraining order.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking $140,000 in interim disbursements from the respondent husband to cover business valuations, real estate appraisals, and anticipated legal fees.

The court found the requests for valuation and appraisal costs lacked specificity and were premature given the early stage of financial disclosure.

However, the court awarded $40,000 in interim disbursements for imminent legal fees, finding the applicant lacked the means to fund the litigation and the advance was necessary to level the playing field.

The respondent in a family law proceeding requested a transcript of select portions of prior Zoom hearings.

The Recording Management Office had no official recording and asked the motions judge if his personal recording could be released.

The judge declined the request, noting that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of family motions are not available unless a judge orders otherwise.

The judge found no reason to exercise his discretion to release the recording, as the issue in question had already been addressed through written submissions and a subsequent hearing.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a Consent Order regarding the annual adjustment of child support.

The applicant argued that the respondent's non-taxable disability income should be imputed in addition to his Line 15000 income.

The court found that the clear wording of the Consent Order precluded the inclusion of income other than the respondent's Line 15000 income.

The applicant was found to be in breach of the Consent Order for failing to sign the necessary documents to adjust the support amount, and was ordered to comply and pay costs.