Ben Snow

The offender, a 25-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery of jewelry stores and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

The court considered his relative youth, his rehabilitative prospects, and the onerous conditions of his pre-sentence custody as mitigating factors against the serious nature of the planned robberies.

He was sentenced to a total of 34 months imprisonment after credit for pre-sentence custody, and the possession count was conditionally stayed.

Crown application for a "High Risk Accused" designation under s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for serious violent offences including robbery, attempted break and enter, and two counts of aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the offences were serious and brutal in nature, the Crown failed to establish a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence endangering another's life or safety.

The accused has responded well to treatment, is currently symptom-free, and demonstrates insight into his condition, though uncertainty remains regarding his adherence to treatment if released into the community without supervision.

The accused was charged with one count of theft under $5,000 and two counts of assault.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence and video surveillance.

The victims were assaulted with pepper spray by masked individuals in an alleyway and one victim's purse was stolen.

The central issue was identity.

The court found the accused guilty based on compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance showing the accused leaving the building wearing a mask, appearing moments after the assault, following the victim, picking up the victim's dropped jacket without attempting to return it, and coordinating with other masked individuals to bring stolen items back into the building.

The applicants, Dennis Singh and Justin Sandassie, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder under section 745(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, the parties' positions, and the binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents.

The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the mandatory minimum sentence remains constitutionally valid and is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad under the Charter.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences against a minor, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 1944 days.

The court deducted delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and apportioned delay caused by defence counsel's unavailability and the systemic shortage of judges.

After deductions, the net delay was 941 days, which exceeded the 30-month (913 days) presumptive ceiling.

The application was allowed and the proceedings were stayed.

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by three defendants charged in relation to a first degree murder.

The defendants argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of their Charter rights.

The court found all three statements were voluntary.

Mr. Kerr's statement was admitted despite a minor s. 10(b) breach.

Mr. Samuel's statement was admitted as no Charter breaches were established.

Ms. Owen's statement was excluded under s. 24(2) because she was arbitrarily detained and denied her right to counsel during the execution of a search warrant, and the court rejected the Crown's argument that the 'actus reus exception' precluded exclusion.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with four counts relating to domestic violence against his common law wife and his son.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion to sever the count relating to the son from the counts relating to the wife.

The Crown brought a cross-motion seeking a pre-trial ruling that evidence of the four separate incidents would be admissible across all four counts to show the family dynamic, motive, and the climate of fear.

The court provisionally allowed the Crown's motion, finding a reasonable possibility that the cross-count evidence would be admissible at trial.

Applying the factors for severance, the court dismissed the defence motion, concluding that the factual and legal issues were closely intertwined and the interests of justice favoured a single trial where the vulnerable witnesses would only have to testify once.

The applicant, charged with being an accessory after the fact to a targeted contract killing, brought an originating bail application under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant assisted the principal offender by providing a place to change clothes, keeping the clothes, acting as an intermediary, and lying to police.

The court found the applicant failed to meet her onus on the secondary grounds due to her history of obstructing justice in a prior murder investigation, the vulnerability of surviving witnesses, and weaknesses in the proposed release plan.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary grounds given the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The defendant, Kunal Bulland, was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm after a trial without a jury.

The collision resulted in catastrophic, permanent injuries to the victim, Ian Godin-Chevrier.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the catastrophic nature of the injuries, the defendant's choice to drive while impaired, a previous careless driving conviction where he promised not to drink and drive again, his driving conduct (failure to brake or take evasive action), and a prior assault conviction.

Mitigating factors included remorse, supportive family and friends, family dependency, and participation in alcohol abuse programs.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing objectives, rejecting the defence's request for an intermittent sentence.

The defendant was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment, a five-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim and his mother.

The defendant, Kunal Bulland, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

The court found that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol at the time of the collision, based on expert toxicological evidence, physical indicia of impairment, and his driving conduct.

The court also determined that this impairment was a significant contributing cause of the victim's severe injuries.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the charge.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of threatening death arising from incidents in January 2017 involving his then-wife.

The Crown alleged that during an argument over the complainant's infidelity, the defendant grabbed the complainant by the neck on one occasion and by the arm on another, causing a bruise, and threatened to kill her male friend from Trinidad.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he only touched the complainant's shoulder lightly and snatched her phone.

The court found the complainant generally credible and her daughter to be the most reliable witness.

The court convicted on one count of assault causing the bruise but dismissed the remaining counts due to lack of corroboration and uncertainty regarding the other allegations.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision to stay disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for allegedly using unnecessary force during the G20 summit.

The Hearing Officer had stayed the proceedings on the basis that the Notice of Hearing served on the officer differed from the draft notice approved by the Police Services Board in a delay application under section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's role under section 83(17) is limited to determining whether the delay in serving the notice was reasonable, not approving the specific wording of the charge.

The Commission revoked the stay and remitted the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant, a youthful first offender, was convicted of domestic violence offences and sentenced to 8 years and 4 months.

The trial judge awarded pre-disposition custody credit at a ratio of 1.25:1.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, the appellant appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent, varying the pre-disposition custody credit to a ratio of 1.5:1, reducing the effective sentence from 60 months to 52 months.