Ari Goldkind

The respondent, a former Deputy Chief of Police, was subject to disciplinary hearings under the Police Services Act.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent resigned from his position.

The Commission determined that it lost jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing because the respondent was no longer a 'police officer' within the meaning of the Act.

The counts of misconduct were dismissed.

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession and breach offences arising from two separate incidents.

In the first incident, the offender confronted a victim with a loaded handgun, pistol-whipped him, and the gun discharged during the ensuing struggle.

In the second incident, the offender was arrested at a residence where a second illegal handgun was found.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the public nature of the assault and the offender's breach of recent bail conditions against mitigating factors including his youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

A global sentence of 5.5 years was imposed, reduced to 39 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

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 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 applicant, a Deputy Chief facing misconduct charges under the Police Services Act, brought a motion for third-party production of various documents from the Ottawa Police Service, including the personnel and application files of a civilian complainant.

The Commission assumed jurisdiction to order third-party production and applied the four-part West Park test.

The motion was dismissed regarding the personnel and application files as the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance, but granted regarding specific notes and emails from two other individuals that were found to be arguably relevant.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a motion for a publication ban to protect the identities of two complainants in a police misconduct hearing involving allegations of sexual harassment against the respondent.

The complainants sought the ban due to concerns about psychological health and potential workplace repercussions.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test and section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for privacy did not override the open tribunal principle and that no serious risk to the administration of justice had been established.

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.