Beth A. Allen

The accused, LB, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of his step-granddaughter AD, aged 10-15, between 2013 and 2018.

The Crown presented evidence from AD, her mother, and a police officer, while the defence called AD's brother and LB himself.

The court applied the W.(D.) principle, assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

While acknowledging the challenges of child witness testimony and delayed disclosure, the judge found significant unreliability in AD's evidence, particularly regarding inconsistencies and omissions of key details in her statements.

Coupled with the strength of LB's denials and explanations, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

LB was acquitted on both counts.

Nathaniel McLaughlin was charged with aggravated assault on a 13-month-old child, Khalaiya Ross.

The judge-alone trial heard evidence from police, EMS, Ms. Ross (the child's mother), and five medical specialists.

The medical evidence overwhelmingly indicated severe, non-accidental trauma inconsistent with the accused's account of an accidental fall.

The court found the accused's statements inconsistent and his alternative theories speculative.

The judge concluded that the injuries occurred while the child was in the accused's sole care, and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Adrian Williams pleaded guilty to possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, parity, and totality, as well as an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's background, including experiences with anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination.

The Crown sought a four-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed three years, arguing the Fentanyl was diluted.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, consecutive to a prior manslaughter conviction, finding the Crown's proposal fit after weighing aggravating factors (subsequent manslaughter conviction, criminal record, institutional misconduct) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, family support, job offer, and social context as it relates to moral culpability).

The accused, Matthew McLean, was sentenced for robbery, possession of an imitation firearm, and assault causing bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the firearm offence and the violent nature of the robbery, alongside extensive mitigating factors such as the accused's youth (21 at the time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, strong family support, pro-social life, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court also considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism in the justice system, as the accused is a young Black man.

The defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years' probation, which the court accepted, finding it consistent with sentencing principles and posing little risk to community safety.

Quoc Tran was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000, stemming from a scheme where he received $291,459.12 through fraudulent credit card product returns orchestrated by a friend.

The court found his claim of unawareness fabricated.

In sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors, including the large sum and protracted nature of the fraud, and mitigating factors, such as Tran's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and family responsibilities.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day conditional sentence, 2 years' probation, and a stand-alone restitution order of $291,459.12, finding it consistent with sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation without requiring incarceration.

The applicant, Gaddiel Ledinek, sought a bail review after being denied release on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious firearms offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a strengthened supervision plan involving three new sureties, 24/7 house arrest, electronic monitoring, and a home security system.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal record, and the strong Crown case, the court found the proposed plan sufficiently robust to address public safety concerns and maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review was granted, and Ledinek was released on strict conditions.

The Appellant, Ibrahim Tshibola, appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing his s. 14 Charter right to a competent interpreter was violated.

He sought to admit fresh evidence from two independent interpreters detailing errors, omissions, and distortions in the trial interpretation, including issues with regional French dialects.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, finding the evidence admissible and cogent, and that the due diligence requirement was satisfied given the compelling nature of the evidence and the defence counsel's inability to detect the issues at trial.

The court concluded that the interpretation fell below the constitutionally guaranteed standard, calling into question the integrity and fairness of the trial.

The appeal was granted, and a new trial ordered.

Kadah Dematas was convicted of multiple charges related to a home invasion and shooting, including discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (violent nature, youth record, lack of employment), and mitigating factors (no prior adult record, young age, improved conduct in custody, genuine remorse, family support, lesser role in the shooting).

The court also addressed enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, including "Summers credits" and "Duncan credits" for harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Dematas's asthma.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with significant credit for time served, resulting in a balance of 1 year remaining.

This is a bail review application by Ajmain Rahman, who is charged with attempt murder and firearms offences.

The applicant sought release based on an enhanced supervision plan and the material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including his moderate asthma.

The court reviewed the original bail decision and a previous bail review, noting the applicant's history of non-compliance and the parents' past inability to supervise.

While acknowledging COVID-19 as a material change, the court found it insufficient to outweigh the deficiencies in the supervision plan, the serious nature of the offences, the strong Crown's case (bolstered by DNA evidence), and the applicant's non-compliant history.

The application for release was dismissed on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant, charged with murder, sought a second bail review after his initial application was denied.

The court considered new evidence constituting a material change in circumstances, including a new supervision plan with his parents as sureties, their relocation to Oshawa to distance him from the crime scene, substantial financial pledges, and significant support from family friends.

Additionally, the court considered the increased vulnerability of the applicant, who suffers from asthma and bronchitis, to COVID-19 in detention.

The court found the new plan sufficient to address public confidence concerns and granted bail with strict conditions.

The accused sought a bail review after a detention order was cancelled by consent.

The application was heard via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered new evidence, including proposed sureties and electronic monitoring, as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

The court found no primary ground concerns (flight risk).

However, on secondary grounds, the court found a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences or interfere with justice, given an extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the serious nature of the current drug and firearm charges.

On tertiary grounds, considering the strength of the prosecution's case, the objective gravity of the offences, and the accused's personal circumstances, the court concluded that continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The impact of the pandemic on correctional facilities and trial delays was considered but not found to be a sufficient basis for release in this specific case.

The application for bail review was denied.

The accused, IA, was charged with multiple sexual offences against the complainant, KH.

The case centered on credibility, with conflicting accounts of the sexual encounter.

The court, applying principles from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Ewanchuk, found IA's evidence credible and reliable.

The Crown failed to disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to IA's acquittal on all counts.

The accused, JF, was tried on nine counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, choking, assault with weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, and robbery.

The complainant, AB, did not appear at trial, and her preliminary inquiry testimony was admitted.

The defence challenged AB's credibility regarding her relationship with JF, her pregnancy, and inconsistencies with forensic evidence.

The court found AB's testimony unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including JF's credible account and the lack of corroborating forensic findings.

JF was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, Zaaman Yusuf, sought a bail review after being denied bail on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, extortion, aggravated assault, and firearm and drug offences.

The defence argued for release based on a revised supervision plan with two sureties and the material change in circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the addition of a second surety did not constitute a material change and expressed concerns about the sureties' naiveté regarding the applicant's activities and the plan's ability to prevent re-offending or interference with justice.

While acknowledging the pandemic as a material change, the court found no specific health vulnerability for the applicant and noted the correctional facility's measures.

Ultimately, the application for release was denied, concluding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be eroded by the applicant's release given the gravity of the offences, the strength of the Crown's case, and the deficiencies in the proposed supervision plan.

Quoc Tran was charged with possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000.

The charges stemmed from a scheme where Mr. Tran's friend, Mr. Ha, defrauded his employer and repaid a purported loan to Mr. Tran using fraudulently obtained funds credited to Mr. Tran's credit cards.

The court found Mr. Tran's explanations regarding his lack of knowledge about the fraud to be incredible, citing inconsistencies in his testimony, his financial sophistication, and his unquestioning acceptance of unusual repayment methods.

The court concluded that Mr. Tran either knew of the fraud or was wilfully blind to it, establishing the mens rea for both charges.

Mr. Tran was found guilty on both counts.

Bashir Osman, facing serious firearm charges and breaches of recognizance, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the circumstances of their commission, and the potential for a lengthy sentence.

Special consideration was given to the accused's health (asthma) and the risks posed by COVID-19 in congregant correctional facilities.

The court found that a robust supervision plan, including electronic monitoring and multiple sureties, mitigated public safety concerns.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, ordering the accused's release with strict conditions.

Lalendra Desilva was sentenced for possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the large quantity and variety of drugs, the commercial nature of the operation, and bail non-compliance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age, lack of prior criminal record, strong support, education, employment history, and genuine remorse.

Enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions was also applied.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, aligning with the defence's request, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights to exclude evidence (drugs and proceeds of crime) seized from an apartment.

In a prior decision, the police were found to have breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by entering and searching the apartment without reasonable and probable grounds.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the state conduct to be careless and serious, the impact on the accused's privacy interests in their home to be significant, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the seized evidence was excluded from trial.

The accused, Shaun Rootenberg, was charged with fraud over $5,000.00.

The defence brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and alleged abuse during pre-trial custody (strip searches).

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no prejudice from late disclosure and that the strip search complaints were not properly brought in the criminal forum.

On the fraud charge, the court found no deceit or falsehood in the initial investments by the complainant, Victoria Smith, but found the actus reus and mens rea of fraud established through "other fraudulent means" due to the unauthorized diversion of Ms. Smith's investment funds for personal use and to third parties.

Rootenberg was found guilty.

The accused, Miguel Orlando Zavala-Martinez, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At sentencing, the defence sought a stay of proceedings or a reduced sentence, arguing police misconduct in obtaining the search warrant constituted Charter violations (ss. 8 and 9) and an abuse of process.

The court found that the affiant police officer failed to be full, frank, and fair in drafting the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, leading to an infringement of the accused's Charter rights.

While the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, it considered the state misconduct and the accused's personal circumstances (age, lack of criminal record, medical conditions, family responsibilities) as significant mitigating factors.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a three-month probationary period, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, departing from the typical custodial range for such an offence.