Ari Goldkind

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.

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

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing he was arbitrarily detained and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure.

Police detained the accused while investigating a reported break and enter.

During the detention, the accused placed a sandwich wrapper on a parked car.

After the accused was arrested for obstructing police, police found crack cocaine in the sandwich wrapper.

The court held that the accused abandoned the sandwich wrapper and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.

The court also found the investigative detention was lawful based on a 911 call.

The Charter application was dismissed.

During a trial for second-degree murder and manslaughter, the Crown sought to introduce twenty-two post-mortem photographs of the deceased through a forensic pathologist.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were highly prejudicial and of limited probative value.

The court balanced the probative value against the risk of reasoning prejudice, finding the photographs were relevant to the nature of the injuries and corroboration of eyewitnesses.

The court admitted twenty-one of the photographs, directing that three be presented in black and white to minimize any potential prejudice.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 844 grams of heroin into Canada.

She swallowed 63 pellets of heroin at Toronto Pearson International Airport upon arrival from Aruba.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 years minus pre-trial detention credit of approximately 2 years and 2 months, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration.

The defence argued for a lower sentence of 4 years minus pre-trial detention based on extraordinary circumstances, including the defendant's traumatic background, vulnerability, lack of personal gain, and the life-threatening method of importation.

The court imposed the Crown's requested sentence of 7 years total, with credit for pre-trial detention, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to depart from established sentencing ranges for heroin importation.

The defendant brought a motion to strike her guilty plea to importing heroin after statements in a pre-sentence report suggested she had been forced to commit the offence and sexually assaulted by those forcing her.

The defendant also alleged the police induced her confession by promising to send her back to Aruba if she admitted guilt.

The court found the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, and that the defendant understood the possible defences available to her and the consequences of her plea.

The motion was dismissed and the plea was upheld.

A sentencing decision involving a 67-year-old offender convicted of 102 counts of sexual abuse against 18 young male victims over a 30-year period spanning 1965 to 1995.

The offender systematically exploited positions of trust as a teacher's assistant, coach, and carnival worker to gain access to vulnerable children, whom he groomed and sexually abused.

The offender had previously been convicted in 1998 for similar offences against 24 other boys from the same time period, for which he received a six-year sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of six years, taking into account the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation over 15 years in the community without reoffending, his consistent use of anti-libidinal medication, his guilty pleas, and his engagement with support services, while balancing the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The Crown brought an application under R. v. Khelawon to admit the videotaped police statement and preliminary inquiry evidence of a complainant who was reluctant to testify at trial.

The court found that while the evidence met the threshold for reliability, the Crown failed to establish necessity.

The court concluded that the police had not made reasonable or diligent efforts to locate the complainant, serve her with a subpoena, or secure her attendance at trial.

Consequently, the application to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed, and the court declined to issue a material witness warrant.

The offender, a 41-year-old first offender with significant health issues, was found guilty of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 15-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of the same length.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including restraint and rehabilitation, and found that the offender posed very little risk of re-offending.

The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by one year of probation, along with a firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16 years, and invitation to sexual touching involving a person under 16 years.

Following conviction, the Crown applied to have the defendant declared a dangerous offender.

The court found the defendant met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a fixed sentence of six years imprisonment followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that with proper conditions and supervision, the risk of re-offending could be reduced to an acceptable level to protect the public.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought approximately nine months with credit for time spent under house arrest.

The court considered the offender's youthful age, lack of prior record, history of childhood sexual abuse, and the significant mitigating effect of his strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent custody, which accounted for the mandatory minimum and pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day plus three years probation.

The defence sought approximately nine months with credit for nearly two years of house arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent imprisonment plus three years probation with conditions including counselling, community service, and compliance with sex offender registration requirements.

The court emphasized the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant mitigating factors including childhood sexual abuse and mental health issues, and low risk of reoffending, while balancing denunciation and general deterrence principles applicable to child pornography offences.

The defendant was charged with firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at his girlfriend's apartment and found a sawed-off shotgun.

The court held voir dires on the voluntariness of the defendant's statements and the validity of the search warrant.

The court excluded the defendant's confessions, finding they were induced by a police promise to release his girlfriend.

The court also found the search warrant was invalid because the Information to Obtain relied on uncorroborated and insufficient information from a confidential informant.

Applying section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the firearm and ammunition due to the serious impact of the Charter breach on the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Following the defendant's conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault, the Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed a psychiatrist to prepare the assessment report.

The Crown sought the right to cross-examine the psychiatrist at the dangerous offender hearing, claiming the assessor was a court-appointed witness.

The defence objected, arguing that permitting Crown cross-examination would undermine the adversarial system and give the Crown an unfair advantage.

The court ruled that both Crown and defence had the right to cross-examine the assessor, distinguishing the nature of dangerous offender proceedings from traditional adversarial trials.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving a 12-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) test, assessing credibility, and relying on demeanour evidence.

He also argued the trial judge failed to give credit for his restrictive bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and demeanour.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately treated the restrictive bail conditions as a mitigating factor in the global sentence.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after striking the complainant on the head with a broomstick during a confrontation inside a residence.

The defence argued that the accused acted in self-defence, asserting that the complainant possessed a pocket knife and posed a threat.

The trial judge rejected this version of events, finding the defence witness unreliable and concluding there was no credible evidence that the complainant had a weapon or acted aggressively.

Applying the principles governing self-defence and the air of reality test, the court found that none of the essential elements of self-defence were supported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally struck the complainant with the broomstick, causing bodily harm.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and breaches of a recognizance.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and sexual assault, and suffered from schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder.

Three expert witnesses agreed the offender was a high risk to reoffend violently and sexually, but disagreed on whether his risk could be managed in the community.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender and that his risk could not be adequately controlled in the community under a long term supervision order due to his history of non-compliance with medication and court orders.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention in a penitentiary.