Beverley A. Olesko

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment after engaging in escalating, sexualized online communications with an 11-year-old child.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation with a conviction, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court considered the accused's diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, his extensive and successful rehabilitation efforts over five years, and his low risk of reoffending.

Concluding that a discharge was in the accused's best interest and not contrary to the public interest, the court granted a conditional discharge.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, was sentenced following his conviction on three firearms-related offences, including unlawful possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The offences came to light after a verbal dispute with his girlfriend, which prompted her to report his possession of a handgun hidden in a lockbox disguised as a book.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option due to the gravity of the offences and the accused's criminal record, imposing a global sentence of three years' imprisonment, less two weeks of credit for pre-sentence custody.

Raza Husain applied to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, imposed in 2011 following convictions for sexual assault and procuring.

The application was brought under the new s. 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code, which allows termination if there is no connection between continuing the order and preventing/investigating sexual crimes, or if the impact on the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate either no connection or gross disproportionality, citing the serious nature of the original offences, lack of expert evidence on re-offending risk, and insufficient evidence of disproportionate impact on the applicant's privacy or liberty.

The accused called 911 after finding his girlfriend unconscious from a drug overdose.

After paramedics took her to the hospital, police remained in the apartment, detained the accused without advising him of his rights, and conducted a warrantless search, discovering firearms and drugs.

The court found multiple egregious Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), failure to provide right to counsel (s. 10), and unlawful search and seizure (s. 8).

The subsequent search warrant was quashed as it relied on tainted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the firearms and drugs due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after his spouse, who suffered from COPD, died when her home oxygen was turned off.

During the medical emergency response, the accused made several statements to police officers and a paramedic.

The defence brought an application to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that statements made to the first responding officers and the paramedic were voluntary and admissible, as the accused was not detained and the paramedic was not a person in authority.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) Charter breach occurred when officers told the accused he would be arrested but delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

Statements made after this breach were excluded under s. 24(2).

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

The accused was found guilty of firearm, ammunition, and drug charges, as well as breaching court orders, following a high-risk police takedown.

The accused was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm while evading police on an outstanding attempted murder warrant and while subject to weapons prohibitions.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of four years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for illegal handgun possession.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

The accused was arrested following a high-risk police takedown while driving a vehicle.

A search of the accused yielded drugs and ammunition, and a subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed a loaded handgun alongside the accused's personal belongings.

The defence argued that police planted the personal items in the trunk to link the accused to the firearm.

The court rejected the defence's evidence, applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, and found the accused guilty of all 16 firearms, drugs, and breach of probation charges.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder by a jury for the manual strangulation of a disabled drug dealer.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 12 to 15 years, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability, and the theft of drugs and money.

The court also considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, which contributed to his substance abuse issues.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years, reducing it from 12 years to reflect the Gladue factors.

The defendant, Justin Wallace, brought two motions during his criminal trial.

The first sought a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter due to lost preliminary inquiry evidence (cross-examination transcript of a complainant).

The second sought to exclude a BB gun under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging arbitrary detention, unlawful search, and delayed right to counsel.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no actual prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence regarding the lost evidence, and no Charter breaches regarding the detention and search, accepting the officers' credibility over the defendant's.

The accused was tried on four sexual-offence counts arising from two alleged incidents involving a young complainant.

The court admitted the complainant's prior video statement after adoption at trial and held that an unproven audio recording of her conversation with a third party was admissible only to the extent she adopted its contents.

Applying the reasonable-doubt and credibility principles governing he-say-she-say cases, the court found multiple material weaknesses in the complainant's chronology and account, including conflicts with travel records and other defence evidence about opportunity.

The Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all counts.

The defendant, an inmate, was attacked by other inmates in a detention centre.

He defended himself using a makeshift weapon and was subsequently charged with assault and assault with a weapon.

The court examined the evidence, including security video, and the defendant's claim of self-defense under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the defendant's use of force, including a weapon, was reasonable given the circumstances of a violent prison environment where official intervention was slow and inadequate.

The defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

The court sentenced the accused following jury convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession of cocaine, with several overlapping firearm and ammunition counts treated under Kienapple.

Applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, parity, and totality, the court held that the five-year mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm remained fit notwithstanding aggravating factors including a planned daytime robbery in a residential building and public-safety risks from a loaded firearm.

Mitigating considerations included the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, compliance with strict bail, and caregiving responsibilities for his father.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the remaining counts, together with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.