Ari Goldkind

The accused confronted the victim with a loaded handgun, believing the victim had assaulted his girlfriend.

The accused pistol-whipped the victim, causing the gun to discharge accidentally.

A struggle ensued, and the gun discharged twice more.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and pointing a firearm.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and pointing a firearm, but acquitted him of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent, finding the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for those offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 20-year-old offender was found guilty of uttering a threat to damage his mother's property and three firearms offences, including possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun with an obliterated serial number.

The offences occurred during a familial conflict while the offender was on probation for a prior weapons offence.

The court weighed the extreme danger of the unsecured, loaded firearm against the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 36 months' imprisonment, reduced by 765 days of enhanced pre-trial custody credit, leaving 330 days to serve, followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused was charged with four offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with an obliterated serial number and threatening to destroy property.

The charges arose after the accused's mother called 9-1-1 during a dispute, leading police to discover a loaded handgun in plain view on a dresser in the accused's bedroom.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the location of the firearm near the accused's health card and clothing, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in knowing possession of the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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.

The accused was charged with theft, threatening death, assault with a weapon, and robbery following an incident at a Home Depot store.

Loss prevention officers observed the accused allegedly hiding two Milwaukee tool batteries under his sweater and exiting without paying.

When they attempted a citizen's arrest, the accused resisted, brandished a box cutter, threatened to kill one officer, and fled.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening death, but acquitted him of theft and robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding whether he actually left the store with the merchandise.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the citizen's arrest under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

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.

The defendant, Quinnton Drake, pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including robbery with a firearm and dangerous driving.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application.

The court found the defendant to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour, demonstrating a failure to restrain behaviour and a substantial indifference to foreseeable consequences.

Despite the defence arguing for a fixed-term sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, the court determined that an indeterminate sentence was required, as there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from the risk of future serious personal injury offences.

Ancillary orders included a mandatory DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

During a police surveillance operation targeting another individual, the accused was arrested in a gas station parking lot after allegedly attempting to flee.

A search incident to arrest revealed fentanyl patches in his pocket.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to either arrest or detain the accused, as there was no nexus between him and the target of the investigation.

The court concluded the arrest was arbitrary and the subsequent search was unreasonable.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the fentanyl evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police conduct demonstrated a deliberate disregard for Charter rights.

The Crown applied for prerogative writs to quash a preliminary hearing judge's decision to continue an ongoing preliminary inquiry after Bill C-75 came into force.

Bill C-75 amended s. 535 of the Criminal Code to eliminate preliminary inquiries for offences with a maximum penalty of less than 14 years.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's application, holding that the amendments do not apply retrospectively to a preliminary inquiry that had already commenced, as doing so would affect substantive rights and lead to absurd results.

James Anthony Scordino was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Angela Skorulski.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, firearm forfeiture, and primary DNA order.

The victim fine surcharge was waived.

The court acknowledged the brutal nature of the killing and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

During a first-degree murder trial, the jury asked whether there was any evidence that the accused contacted his lawyer about removing the victim from a civil lawsuit.

The Crown requested that the court mention circumstantial evidence, while the defence requested instructions to prevent reversing the burden of proof.

The trial judge applied the principles from R. v. S.(W.D.) and answered the question with a simple 'no', finding it to be accurate, complete, and fair to both sides.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown argued that manslaughter should not be left as an available verdict for the jury.

The court agreed, finding no air of reality to an accidental or unintentional killing, as the forensic evidence showed the victim was shot multiple times in the head, including a final contact shot to the back of the head while incapacitated.

The jury was left with verdicts of not guilty, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder.

The accused, James Anthony Scordino, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for leave to raise an alternate suspect defence at trial, alleging David Michael Hodgins was responsible for the killing.

The court applied the 'air of reality' test, requiring evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably acquit if accepted as true.

Despite Hodgins having a strong financial motive, the defence could not place him at the crime scene, nor was there forensic evidence implicating him.

The court found a complete absence of anything connecting Hodgins to the crime beyond motive, and therefore dismissed the application, prohibiting the defence from suggesting Hodgins killed or may have killed the victim at trial, subject to reconsideration if evidence warrants.

The offender pleaded guilty to three offences: criminal harassment, uttering a death threat, and distributing an intimate image without consent.

The offences arose from a pattern of conduct following the offender's separation from his wife and discovery of her infidelity.

The offender engaged in a prolonged course of harassment involving unwanted communications, surveillance equipment, GPS tracking, hidden cameras, and threats directed at both his estranged wife and her new partner.

The offender also created fake advertisements on a sex trade website using intimate images of his wife without consent.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight months imprisonment, with specific terms for each count, followed by three years of probation with strict conditions including no-contact orders and counselling requirements.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from incidents on September 7, 2015: fraudulently obtaining beverages at a bar, threatening bodily harm to a patron, and assaulting another individual.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently obtained beverages by ordering drinks, offering insufficient payment, and leaving without paying.

The accused was found guilty of threatening serious bodily harm after losing his temper and threatening to hit the patron with a chair and kick him in the ribs.

However, the assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused's assault on the victim's companion was committed as part of a common purpose to assault the victim or was an independent act of malice.

The offenders participated in a group assault on the victim following an altercation at a rave.

Triolo stabbed the victim in the chest, committing second-degree murder.

Lozada and Ramos participated in the group assault, making the victim vulnerable to the stabbing, and were convicted of manslaughter.

Triolo was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.

Lozada and Ramos were each sentenced to three years imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused, Coltt Roberts, was charged with aggravated assault and breach of two probation orders.

The case was circumstantial, relying on video evidence, DNA, and the testimony of the victim's son, as the primary witness's (Ms. McKenzie's) testimony was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential manipulation.

The court applied the rule in Hodge's Case, finding that the reliable evidence established the accused's exclusive opportunity and motive to assault the victim.

The court dismissed alternative explanations as speculative and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated assault and breach of probation.