Antonio Skarica

The accused was convicted of extortion, transmitting an intimate image without consent, and three counts of breaching bail conditions.

The accused extorted money from his former intimate partner by threatening to distribute a sexually explicit video, and subsequently distributed the video despite receiving the money.

While on bail, the accused repeatedly contacted the complainant in violation of his release conditions.

The court emphasized the severe psychological impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day in the penitentiary.

The sentencing reasons in this first-degree murder case reflect on the complexity of modern criminal trials, the evolution of the justice system, and the application of what the judge terms "spiritual laws" of truth and justice.

The judge, reflecting on a long career, discusses the facts and evidence that led to the conviction, the character and conduct of the accused, and the broader lessons for society.

The sentence imposed is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

This decision addresses the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to order increased compensation for jurors in lengthy criminal jury trials, above the statutory minimums set by regulation.

Justice Skarica reviews the constitutional and historical importance of jury trials, the inadequacy of current compensation, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to ensure a fair and representative jury.

The court orders increased daily compensation for jurors, as well as improved provision of snacks and meals, to ensure the effective functioning of the jury system and the fair administration of justice.

The court ruled on the admissibility of three police statements made by the accused, Rebecca Eden, in a first-degree murder investigation.

The first two statements (audio and video) were made on June 10, 2021, when she was a person of interest.

The third statement was made on March 11, 2022, after her arrest for first-degree murder.

The court found that the accused was detained during the second statement, and her Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) were violated due to police conduct, including failing to inform her of the true reasons for detention and the seizure of her phone without informed consent.

Applying the "tainting" doctrine from R. v. Pino, these Charter breaches retroactively rendered the first (audio) statement inadmissible as part of the same transaction.

For the third statement, the court found that the police violated the accused's section 7 right to silence by persistently questioning her despite her repeated assertions (106-108 times) that she wished to remain silent on advice of counsel.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that admitting all three statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

All three statements were ruled inadmissible.

A Hamilton jury awarded the plaintiff over $1 million in damages for serious injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

The jury award exceeded both the plaintiff's and defendants' offers to settle.

This decision addresses the plaintiff's application for costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest.

The court applied Rule 49.10, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the date of their offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court also exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to fix prejudgment interest at 3% and post-judgment interest at 7%.

The total award for costs and interest was $1,104,557.50.

The accused, Cadence Beauparlant, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code, following an incident where a 17-year-old girl was fatally shot by a co-accused using the firearm Beauparlant brought to a party.

The court considered mitigating factors (no prior record at the time of the offence, youth, guilty plea) and numerous aggravating factors (reckless disregard for safety, flight from scene, continued drug trafficking, unrecovered firearm).

The judge emphasized the need for strong denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, noting the alarming increase in such crimes in Hamilton despite judicial calls for stricter sentences.

The court found the accused's rehabilitation prospects poor given his post-offence conduct.

A sentence of seven years in penitentiary, consecutive to existing sentences for drug trafficking, was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a non-communication order.

The accused, Mark Champagne, charged with second-degree murder, brought a Corbett application to edit his prior criminal record for cross-examination on credibility.

The defence sought to exclude portions of both his adult and youth records and to limit the scope of cross-examination.

The court, applying the Corbett factors (nature, similarity, remoteness, risk of distorted picture), ruled that the accused's entire adult criminal record, including serious convictions like attempted murder and aggravated assault, was admissible for cross-examination on credibility.

The court found the probative value outweighed any prejudice, especially given the accused's attacks on Crown witness credibility.

However, the court ruled that the youth record was inadmissible, finding its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect due to its age, similarity to adult convictions, and limited relevance to credibility.

The cross-examination was restricted to the fact of conviction, not the details of the offences.

Following a jury conviction for second-degree murder arising from an intimate-partner shooting, the court was required to impose life imprisonment and determine the period of parole ineligibility under ss. 745 and 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the killing was a deliberate execution of an unarmed pregnant partner, committed at close range with extreme violence, and placed heavy weight on the offender's serious prior record for domestic attempted murder, absence of remorse, high risk of recidivism, and the jury's recommendation.

Social context evidence, including anti-Black racism, poverty, childhood abuse, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions, was reviewed but held not to materially mitigate moral culpability or reduce the parole ineligibility period on the facts.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with 22 years of parole ineligibility, together with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, non-communication, and forfeiture orders.

The Crown brought applications for certiorari and under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act regarding a provincial court judge's disclosure order in a s. 74 Firearms Act reference hearing.

The respondents' firearms registration certificates had been nullified following a May 2020 Order in Council.

The provincial court judge ordered disclosure of the computer algorithm used to identify the affected firearms.

The Superior Court dismissed the certiorari application, finding the provincial court judge had jurisdiction to conduct the hearing and order disclosure.

On the s. 37 application, the court varied the disclosure order, prohibiting the release of specific computer code due to public safety risks, but ordering disclosure of general information about the scripts' creation and the Registrar's involvement.

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices and extra work performed on a municipal renovation project.

The defendant refused to pay, alleging the plaintiff mismanaged the project, caused significant delays, and performed deficient work, and brought a counterclaim for costs to complete and rectify the work.

The court found the defendant's principal witness lacked credibility and that the defendant had orally approved the extra work, establishing a quantum meruit claim.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence of deficient work and noting the defendant failed to provide contractual notices of default.

The plaintiff was awarded $188,514.62 and its construction lien was declared valid.

The Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a cellphone Health App to show the accused was pacing at home shortly after a fatal fire.

The defence opposed, arguing the underlying science was unreliable.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the Health App data was not reliable for forensic purposes in this case, as there was no independent evidence the accused was walking or running with the phone, and the app could register false positives.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased victim, Alan Rutherford, identifying his assailant in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as dying declarations and spontaneous utterances.

The defence challenged their reliability due to inconsistencies among witnesses and a minor factual error by the declarant.

The court found that the statements met the criteria for both traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach, concluding that the defence's objections went to the weight of the evidence rather than its threshold admissibility.

The Crown's application to admit the statements was granted.

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, charged with two counts of first-degree murder, to sit at counsel table during trial.

The court outlines twelve principles governing such applications, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and courtroom security.

The court rejects the notion that the defence bears an onus to show exceptional circumstances.

Applying these principles, the court grants the application, permitting the accused to sit at counsel table, subject to being restrained by silent ankle shackles and appropriate security placement.

The plaintiff, Patrick Lyng, sued Ontario Place Corporation under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a serious knee injury sustained after a concert.

The injury occurred when he fell down a wet, grassy hill after a pedestrian bridge, the shortest route to the Go Station, was closed.

The court found Ontario Place Corporation 75% liable for failing to take reasonable care by not providing adequate warnings or barriers for the known hazardous hill, especially given the wet conditions and the presence of intoxicated patrons.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for jumping down the hill while intoxicated and wearing flip-flops.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past income loss, and future loss of competitive advantage, totaling $131,525.41 before prejudgment interest, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence (cocaine, money, cell phones) seized incident to his arrest, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arresting officer's testimony unreliable and incredible, concluding that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and failed to promptly inform the accused of the reasons for his arrest.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest was unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, occupier's liability, and breach of the Liquor Licence Act after the plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury in a mosh pit at a heavy metal concert.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the injury was reasonably foreseeable or that the defendants breached the standard of care, noting that security guards were present and actively monitoring the crowd.

The court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the action.

The accused was convicted of five criminal offences, including possession of a stolen van, stolen firearms, and driving offences following a police chase.

During arrest, the accused was shot and sustained severe, unhealed injuries leading to significant disability.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration risk and the accused's serious injuries and chaotic childhood.

The court ultimately imposed a suspended sentence and two years' probation, giving credit for pre-trial custody and the severe injury sustained during arrest, finding no further benefit in incarceration.

The accused, Mato Josipovic, applied for judicial interim release (bail) pending a new trial for second-degree murder, citing the potential lethal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in detention and probable trial delays.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

While the primary ground (flight risk) was satisfied, the court found the Crown's case to be overwhelming and the gravity and circumstances of the offense (a public, brutal execution involving multiple shots and danger to bystanders) necessitated detention on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The specific risks posed by COVID-19 in the detention centre were not found to be higher than in the general population, and potential trial adjournments were deemed uncertain at the time of the application.

The bail application was denied.

The accused sought a bail review following his detention on multiple criminal charges.

The review, conducted remotely via ZOOM during the COVID-19 pandemic, raised two main issues: an alleged error in law by the initial justice of the peace and a material change in circumstances due to a new surety and the risk posed by COVID-19 in custody.

The court found no error in law by the initial justice and determined that neither the proposed new surety nor the general risk of COVID-19 constituted a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant release, particularly given the accused's history of breaching court orders and the serious nature of the charges.