Ari Goldkind

The accused was charged with attempted murder and related firearms offences after the victim was shot six times inside an apartment.

The victim testified that the accused was not the shooter, but the court rejected this evidence as not credible.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including security video and forensic analysis, the court concluded the accused was the shooter.

The court found no air of reality to the accused's claim of self-defence and inferred an intent to kill from the fact that the accused shot the unarmed victim six times at close range.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim multiple times during an altercation outside the Eaton Centre.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the serious violence and the offender's criminal record against mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, remorse, and elements of provocation and self-defence.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition, but waived the victim fine surcharge due to undue hardship.

This decision involves the dangerous offender designation and sentencing of Charles Waddling-Leeson following convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences.

The court found that Waddling-Leeson has a long history of violent and sexual offending, including serious personal injury offences, and has demonstrated a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Expert psychiatric evidence established a very high risk of future sexual and violent recidivism, with diagnoses including antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic traits.

Despite limited engagement with rehabilitative programming and treatment, the offender showed no meaningful insight or remorse.

The court concluded that Waddling-Leeson’s behaviour is intractable and that no lesser sentence than an indeterminate term of imprisonment would adequately protect the public.

Ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and lifelong compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act were also imposed.

The court considered whether Jason Buick, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery and dangerous driving, should be declared a dangerous offender and receive an indeterminate sentence.

Both parties agreed that Buick met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender under s.753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was whether a determinate sentence, possibly followed by a long-term supervision order (LTSO), would adequately protect the public.

After reviewing expert psychiatric evidence, Buick’s history, and the available supervision and treatment options, the court found there was no reasonable expectation that anything less than an indeterminate sentence would manage the risk of violent re-offending.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence and made ancillary orders.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who had a lengthy history of domestic violence and non-compliance with court orders, argued for a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found that the statutory criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no reasonable expectation that the offender's high risk of violent recidivism could be managed in the community, and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of detention.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and robbery after attacking a pregnant woman in a public washroom.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the Crown and defence agreed the offender should be designated a long-term offender but disagreed on the sentence length.

The court weighed the offender's high risk of violent and sexual recidivism, his history of violence against women, and his bipolar affective disorder.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years in custody (two years going forward after pre-sentence credit) and a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case in a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied for a directed verdict, seeking to remove the elevation of murder to first degree based on unlawful confinement and criminal harassment from jury consideration.

The court orally dismissed the application regarding criminal harassment.

In these written reasons, the court granted the application concerning unlawful confinement, finding no evidence of a distinct act of confinement separate from the murder itself, thus precluding first-degree murder liability on that ground.

Zachary Gibson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the brutal killing of Michael Grawberger.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which is set at 17 years, considering aggravating factors such as the brutal, planned nature of the attack, its domestic context, and the broad impact on victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

Terrel Edwards was charged with eight offences, including assault and threats against his former girlfriend and five firearm-related offences.

The court, sitting without a jury, found Mr. Edwards guilty of the five firearm offences, rejecting his defence as fabricated due to inconsistencies and implausibility.

However, the court acquitted him of the assault and threatening charges, finding reasonable doubt due to concerns with the complainant's testimony regarding those specific incidents, including inconsistencies and a perceived attempt to minimize her own actions and emotions.

The defendant, Jason Lacroix, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, commission of an indictable offence with an imitation firearm, and unlawful confinement.

The court considered his background, including a history of substance abuse, a traumatic brain injury, and a lengthy criminal record, alongside his lesser degree of responsibility compared to a co-accused.

The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years, while the defence proposed four to five years.

The court sentenced the defendant to a global sentence of five years, less pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the parity principle and his subordinate role in the offences.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting an unarmed construction worker at a worksite following a motor vehicle collision and attempted theft of a work van.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The sentencing judge found no evidence of planning but noted the aggravating factors of introducing a loaded firearm into a public altercation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 12 years.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for a fatal stabbing that occurred during a brief physical altercation.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary term, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused carrying and quickly using a large knife, and the profound impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, cooperation with police, and potential for rehabilitation.

The judge rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient to reflect the gravity of the crime, and imposed a 34-month penitentiary sentence after accounting for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a firearm prohibition, and knife forfeiture were also made.

The Crown brought an application to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and uttering a death threat.

The offender had a lengthy history of violent offences, an antisocial personality structure, and a major mental illness.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, as his violent conduct was substantially intractable and he posed a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

Concluding that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, robbery, possession of stolen property, and breach of probation against the accused, Charles Waddling-Leeson.

The complainant, Ms. A.A., testified to a non-consensual sexual assault in a university washroom, including choking, threats of a knife, and bodily harm, followed by the theft of her iPhone.

The accused claimed the sexual encounter was consensual and pre-arranged via Tinder.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the accused, considering DNA evidence, video surveillance, and legal principles regarding memory frailties in trauma victims and the caution against stereotypical reasoning in sexual assault cases.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable on the core issues of consent, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the accused's version of events due to significant contradictions with the evidence.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown prosecuted historical sexual offence allegations said to have occurred approximately 20 to 22 years earlier when the complainant was between four and six years old.

The court found the complainant sincere and generally credible, but not sufficiently reliable to ground convictions beyond a reasonable doubt, given material inconsistencies, the evolving nature of her memory, significant new disclosures at trial, and the implausibility of one alleged car incident.

The court also found the brother's evidence did not amount to material confirmatory evidence.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and caution regarding trauma, delayed disclosure, and myths about sexual assault reporting, the court acquitted on both counts.

Three youthful first offenders, aged 18 and 19, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the severe impact of fentanyl in the community alongside the offenders' youth, prospects for rehabilitation, and social context evidence.

The court heavily criticized the overly restrictive bail conditions imposed on the offenders, granting them 18 months of credit.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the offenders to 3 years, 2 years, and 3 years in custody, emphasizing restraint in sentencing youthful offenders while acknowledging the objective gravity of wholesale fentanyl trafficking.

The defendant, Javar Thomas, was tried on 22 counts including sexual assault with a firearm, death threats, firearms offences, and human trafficking-related charges involving two complainants.

The court found the complainants' testimony credible and corroborated by other evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on 20 of the 22 counts, including multiple counts of sexual assault with a weapon, death threats, firearms offences, assault with a weapon, human trafficking (transporting for exploitation, exercising control, receiving financial benefit), and procuring.

Two counts were withdrawn.

A sentencing hearing is to be set.

The applicant was pulled over for an obstructed licence plate.

During the traffic stop, the officer smelled burnt cannabis and observed cannabis shake.

The officer also suspected the rental vehicle might be stolen.

The officer delayed informing the applicant of the new reasons for detention and failed to provide rights to counsel promptly.

A search of the applicant and vehicle yielded fentanyl, a loaded handgun, and credit card data.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter and sought exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) but no breaches of ss. 8 or 9.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches were not at the most egregious end of the spectrum, had minimal impact on the applicant's interests, and society's interest in adjudicating serious offences on the merits strongly favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after an unprovoked physical altercation in a bank vestibule resulted in the victim's death from blunt force trauma.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 5 to 8 years.

The court weighed the brutal and senseless nature of the attack against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and harsh presentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment before statutory credit for presentence custody.

In a criminal trial for historical sexual assault, the court assessed the reliability of the complainant's testimony.

While the complainant was found credible, concerns regarding the reliability of her memory, including admitted weaknesses, haziness, and susceptibility to suggestion during initial disclosure, raised a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's mid-trial abscondment did not alter the assessment.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.