Andrew Stastny

The accused was charged with kidnapping, extortion, aggravated assault, and other offences following the targeted abduction and torture of the complainant.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial, relying on video surveillance, financial transactions using the accused's account, and fingerprint evidence found in the complainant's stolen vehicle.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence established the accused's identity as a central participant in the kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, either as a principal, aider, or party to a common intention.

The accused was charged with robbery and second-degree murder after forcefully kicking the victim during a robbery, causing the victim to fall and strike his head on the pavement, resulting in fatal brain injuries.

The trial proceeded by judge alone on an agreed statement of facts.

The sole issue was whether the accused had the requisite specific intent for second-degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused had the subjective intent to cause bodily harm, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had subjective knowledge that the harm was likely to result in death.

The accused was found not guilty of second-degree murder, but guilty of manslaughter and robbery.

The applicant, a passenger in a motor vehicle, was committed for trial on charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession after police found 6.2 grams of crack cocaine on the vehicle's centre console.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash the committal, arguing there was no evidence he had control over the drugs.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that mere proximity and opportunity to control the drugs did not amount to actual or constructive possession.

The court concluded that no reasonable jury could infer control from the evidence, and quashed the committal for trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm without a licence and possession while prohibited.

He was a passenger in a car that was shot at, and he briefly possessed and threw away the driver's loaded gun when police approached.

The court found his possession was fleeting.

Considering his guilty plea, relative youth, and the unique circumstances, the court imposed a global sentence of 21 months.

After credit for 17 months of pre-trial custody, he was sentenced to one day in jail and two years of probation.

The offender was found guilty of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of two and a half years' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's mental illness, lack of prior drug record, and the delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to robbery and aggravated assault arising from a violent group attack on a neighbour accused of "snitching." The offender and a co‑accused repeatedly punched, kicked, and stomped the victim, causing severe injuries including fractures requiring surgery and prolonged hospitalization, while also stealing the victim’s cell phone.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim, the retaliatory motive, the severity of the injuries, and the significant impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, relative youth, guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and parity principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation.

The accused brought a motion under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charge to the anticipated trial was approximately 31 months, with about 19 months attributed to institutional or mixed institutional delay.

Applying the Morin framework, the court considered the reasons for delay and whether actual or inferred prejudice had been established.

The accused alleged stress, bail restrictions, housing issues, and inability to travel, but the court found these harms were not caused by the delay or were self-inflicted due to failure to seek bail variations.

Given the seriousness of the charges and absence of demonstrated prejudice, the court concluded the delay did not justify a stay.

The offenders were convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement following a home invasion where imitation firearms were used and young children were present.

The Crown sought sentences of 6 years for Brown and 8 years for Hersi.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed the offenders' youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

Brown, a first-time offender who constructively pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 2.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Hersi, who played a more significant role, had a prior record, and was convicted of uttering threats, was sentenced to a total of 4.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.