Annemarie Angela Olga Marchetti

The Ontario Review Board conducted an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for telecommunication with a person under 16 years.

The Board accepted the risk assessment evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to schizoaffective disorder and lack of insight.

Following a joint recommendation, the Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms including residence at the family home, reporting requirements, and a prohibition on contacting the victim.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine and fentanyl, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, after being stopped by police driving a car containing the drugs.

The Crown relied on wiretap and surveillance evidence from an investigation into two co-conspirators.

The court found that the accused was a member of the conspiracy and either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind to the fact that the specific drugs involved were cocaine and fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with robbery and related offences following an armed robbery of a marijuana dispensary by four masked men.

The Crown's case on identity was circumstantial, relying on video surveillance, witness descriptions, the evidence of the getaway driver, and clothing seized from the accused's home.

The court found the getaway driver's evidence unreliable and noted significant differences between the clothing seized and the clothing worn by the perpetrator in the video.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

Dr. Peter Dziak pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and breach of an undertaking.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge, emphasizing the causal role of Dr. Dziak's serious psychiatric disorder.

The court found Dr. Dziak's moral culpability to be extremely low due to a delusional disorder.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court granted a conditional discharge, prioritizing proportionality and the offender's rehabilitation over general deterrence and denunciation given the central role of mental illness.

A three-year probation period with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order were imposed.

The accused was charged with robbery and wounding following a home invasion where two brothers were assaulted and stabbed.

The central issue at trial was identity.

The victims identified the accused, whom they had known from their neighbourhood years prior, both during the incident and in subsequent photo lineups.

Despite defence arguments regarding the reliability of the recognition evidence, the passage of time, and flaws in the photo lineup procedures, the court found the identification evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The accused was arrested at the airport for sexual assault and making child pornography.

During a lengthy police interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to silence and expressed confusion about his rights, but the interviewing officer continued questioning, minimized the allegations, and induced the accused to provide his cell phone password.

The court found the statement was involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The statement and the contents of the cell phone were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and making child pornography arising from sexual activity in a vehicle with a 17-year-old complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found both the complainant and the accused generally consistent but each had credibility concerns, including concerns about the complainant’s reliability arising from intoxication evidence, inconsistencies about post-incident events, and a non-speculative possible motive to fabricate.

The Crown therefore failed to prove non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the child pornography count, the court found an air of reality to the mistake of age defence and, applying the contextual all reasonable steps analysis under s. 163.1(5), was left with a reasonable doubt that the accused believed the complainant was at least 18 and had failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain age.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

During a trial for child pornography offences, the accused brought a mistrial application after the Crown introduced an unannounced in-court demonstration by a police technical analyst to rebut evidence elicited during the cross-examination of the Crown's computer forensics expert.

The accused argued the analyst gave unqualified expert evidence and the demonstration constituted trial by ambush.

The court held that the analyst's testimony was factual, not expert opinion, but ruled the demonstration inadmissible due to the lack of prior disclosure.

The mistrial application was dismissed, with the court finding that excluding the demonstration and allowing the defence to recall witnesses or call their own expert was a sufficient remedy.

The Crown appealed the 18-month global sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing that the sentences for the two offences should normally be consecutive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the global sentence was not demonstrably unfit for this offender.