Ari Goldkind

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.

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 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.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and other offences following a knife attack on a woman in her apartment.

The complainant died before trial for unrelated reasons.

The court admitted her 911 call as an excited utterance and portions of her police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and uttering threats, but acquitted him of attempted murder, finding the specific intent to kill was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was also found guilty of assaulting a police officer by spitting on him during booking.

The defendant, Andrew Morris, pleaded not guilty to assault, specifically spitting on and hitting the complainant.

The defence disputed identity, while the Crown relied on the complainant's in-dock identification, TTC video surveillance, and recognition evidence from a Special Constable who had prior interactions with the defendant.

Despite a height discrepancy in the complainant's identification, the court found the Special Constable's recognition evidence, based on substantial prior contact and good quality video, to be sufficiently strong and reliable to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court distinguished Chartier by noting the presence of buttressing circumstantial evidence.

Andrew Morris was found guilty.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being in custody for over 90 days.

The Crown conceded no substantial likelihood of reoffence (secondary ground) but opposed release on the tertiary ground, arguing it would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case (strong for most charges, weak for attempted murder), gravity of offences, firearm use, and potential lengthy imprisonment.

While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's desire to see his children, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal record, and the weaknesses in the proposed bail plan.

The application for release was dismissed.

The accused, charged with second degree murder following an unprovoked and fatal assault on a stranger, applied for judicial interim release.

The court reviewed the accused's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and the strength of the Crown's case.

The court found the proposed release plan, which relied on family members as sureties, insufficient to manage the risk.

The application was dismissed, and the accused was ordered detained on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The offender was found guilty of possessing a loaded 9mm handgun with an over-capacity magazine in his car, while bound by two weapons prohibitions and trafficking drugs.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the s. 92(1) charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes associated with drug trafficking, the court imposed a total sentence of 4 years (minus 10 days) for the firearm and breach offences, consecutive to a prior sentence for the drug offences.

The offender received statutory credit for pre-sentence custody plus 150 days of enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chaddrick Brown was charged with possession of a loaded illegal handgun.

He pleaded guilty to drug trafficking but denied knowledge of the handgun found in his rented car.

The trial focused on whether the Crown could prove constructive possession of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Brown's testimony, finding his account vague and inconsistent with other evidence, including his friend's testimony.

The judge concluded that the handgun was habitually kept in the car for the driver's use and that Brown, as the primary driver and controller of the vehicle, was in possession of it.

Brown was found guilty of the handgun offences.