Beverly A. Brown

Sentencing on a guilty plea to careless driving causing death contrary to s. 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant drove a van at high speed toward a boat launch ramp in a parking lot adjacent to Ashbridges Bay, mistaking it for an exit road.

The vehicle entered the icy waters of Lake Ontario and sank, resulting in the death of the front-seat passenger who was trapped by an interior security cage.

The original charge of dangerous driving causing death under the Criminal Code was withdrawn after the Crown determined insufficient evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care.

A joint submission was accepted pursuant to R. v. Anthony-Cook.

Sentence comprised time served of four months actual custody with enhanced credit of six months less a day, twelve months probation with counselling conditions, a five-year driving suspension, and a victim fine surcharge.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a stolen vehicle valued over $5,000 by Kamran Mughal, who pled guilty to one count amidst a broader investigation into vehicle trafficking.

The court carefully considered the joint submission for a conditional sentence of six months, balancing the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s lack of prior record, and his recent severe gunshot injuries.

The court declined to consider additional aggravating facts read into the record due to the defence’s successful application to exclude them.

The decision highlights the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on joint submissions and sentencing principles, including proportionality, judicial restraint, and individualized sentencing.

The sentence imposed includes house arrest, curfew, GPS monitoring, and probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and avoidance of the offence location.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Omar Ashraf Elkhodary guilty of assaulting Vicky Moscoe by pushing her during a confrontation over posters depicting child hostages.

The court carefully analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, rejecting Elkhodary's claim of self-defence.

The court applied the modern self-defence framework under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the accused's purpose and reasonable belief of threat.

It concluded Elkhodary's actions were motivated by a desire to remove the posters rather than to defend himself, and that no reasonable grounds existed to believe force was being used or threatened by the complainant.

The accused, Miller Hiscock, was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse without a condom or to ejaculation inside her.

The court found that the complainant consented to the sexual acts and that there was no prior discussion or condition regarding condom use or the location of ejaculation.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The court concluded that the sexual acts were consensual and the accidental ejaculation inside the complainant did not retroactively remove consent, leading to an acquittal.

The Ontario Court of Justice declined to accept a joint sentencing submission of a six-month conditional sentence for an offender who pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles over $5,000.

The court expressed serious concerns that the proposed sentence was too lenient given the prevalence of vehicle theft in the Greater Toronto Area and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court ordered the Crown to obtain victim impact statements, provide detailed information on the value and recovery of all vehicles involved, and produce police statistics on automobile theft prevalence, investigations, and resources in Toronto and the GTA, pursuant to s. 723 of the Criminal Code and the procedure outlined in R. v. Anthony Cook.

The Crown sought a recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code against Steven Noel Wice, alleging fear on reasonable grounds that he would commit a serious personal injury offence.

The court reviewed Wice's extensive criminal history, including a prior dangerous offender designation, psychiatric assessments diagnosing antisocial personality disorder and high risk of violent recidivism, and his consistent failure to engage in anger management treatment.

Despite some positive conduct, the court found the Crown's fear objectively reasonable due to Wice's past behaviour and lack of progress in addressing his anger issues.

The court imposed an 8-month recognizance with specific conditions, including reporting, weapons prohibition, substance abstinence (except cannabis), disclosure of intimate relationships, and mandatory anger management treatment.

Ashley Gallie, a pharmacy technician, was sentenced for multiple criminal and drug charges, including theft over $5,000 and possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, arising from stealing large quantities of oxycodone from two pharmacies where she was employed.

The court found her guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking for the first pharmacy (Nova) but not for the second (IDA), accepting her addiction but rejecting her claim of sole personal use for all stolen drugs.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and the large quantity of drugs, and mitigating factors including her lack of prior record, addiction, and family circumstances.

A penitentiary sentence of four years and six months was imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking, with concurrent sentences for other charges.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, Airgama Abaya, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in his impaired driving trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn (July 7, 2022) to the completion of evidence and submissions (March 27, 2024) was 20 months and 20 days.

After deducting 32 days of defence-conceded delay, the net delay was 19 months and 18 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court found no discrete events or case complexity to qualify as exceptional circumstances, and declined to consider general COVID-19 ripple effects or judge/staff shortages without specific evidence and argument.

Consequently, the court found a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter and imposed a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1).

Mario Mendonca was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg.

The defence filed a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and dismissed all Charter arguments, finding no breaches.

The evidence, including blood alcohol readings, was admitted.

Mendonca was found guilty on both charges.

Jerome Bosnjak was found guilty of multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Schedule I drugs (crystal methamphetamine, cocaine, Ketamine, GHB) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody, for the drug trafficking offences, with a concurrent 30-day sentence for proceeds of crime.

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the drug operation, the offender's absconding during trial, and a complete lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily the agreement to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA sample order, and forfeiture of seized cash and drug paraphernalia.

The accused, Kadah Dematas, was charged with four counts related to offences committed during his arrest by police officers, including assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial focused on the accused's knowledge that the complainants were police officers, whether his actions were a reflex, and if he acted in self-defence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, concluding that he intentionally assaulted both officers, knowing they were police, and was not acting in self-defence or reflexively.

Dematas was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Subramaniam, and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Miller.

He was found not guilty of assault with a weapon against Detective Constable Miller.

The matter was adjourned for sentencing.

The offender, a racialized transgender woman, was sentenced after being found guilty of assault with a weapon, three counts of assault with intent to resist arrest against police officers, mischief, and breach of probation.

The court considered her difficult background, prior criminal record including a manslaughter conviction, and community work, but found no remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly for assaults on police officers, and determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences and the offender's record.

A total sentence of 12 months and 15 days' incarceration was imposed, followed by two years' probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

This criminal trial in the Ontario Court of Justice addresses two assault allegations against the accused, James Alfred Doan, stemming from an incident in an apartment building elevator during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first allegation involved an intentional push of the complainant, Roxanne Wright, in the elevator, while the second concerned an alleged strike to her face.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) to assess credibility, particularly where video evidence was available for one allegation but not the other.

The defence argued the de minimis non curat lex principle, which the court rejected, distinguishing the intentional push from incidental contact.

The court found the accused guilty of the intentional push in the elevator, relying on clear video evidence and the complainant's corroborated testimony.

However, due to numerous inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged face strike, for which no video evidence existed, the court found the accused not guilty of that charge, concluding that the Crown had not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a tow truck driver, was charged with assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and dangerous driving following an altercation with another tow truck driver.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by video and physical evidence, and rejected the accused's self-defence claim, finding his actions were motivated by vengeance rather than self-protection.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening bodily harm, but not guilty of dangerous driving as the driving conduct did not meet the criminal threshold.

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling on April 18, 2020, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence on April 19, 2020, and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue was the calculation of enhanced presentence custody credit, particularly regarding lockdown conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre and COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

The court imposed an 18-month global sentence with enhanced presentence custody credit totalling 18 months, resulting in immediate release on probation.

The judgment addresses systemic failures in the detention centre's provision of personal protective equipment to vulnerable detainees.

The applicant sought to set aside guilty pleas entered on April 13, 2016, to three counts of knowingly using forged documents, totalling $138,807.01 in losses.

The applicant claimed the pleas were involuntary and uninformed, alleging his counsel pressured him to plead guilty and failed to inform him that the Crown would seek a freestanding restitution order.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as lacking credibility and accepted the counsel's evidence that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The applicant was aware of the Crown's intention to seek restitution and had multiple opportunities to disclose any improper pressure.

The application was dismissed and the guilty pleas were upheld.

The court addressed a conflict of interest issue arising before the commencement of a five-day trial involving two co-accused charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Defence counsel for one accused was also representing the other accused in separate ongoing criminal proceedings.

The court found that the divided loyalties between two current clients created a substantial risk that counsel's representation would be materially and adversely affected, and disqualified counsel from representing the first accused.

The court held that independent legal advice could not remedy the fundamental problem of divided loyalty between concurrent clients.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit on March 19, 2016.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issues were whether the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated the vehicle and whether he did so within the relevant time period.

The trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence, including the location of the vehicle on streetcar tracks in a tunnel, the accused's presence at the scene, his statements and conduct, and the timing of the incident relative to police dispatch.

The court found the accused guilty based on the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence establishing both identity and timing.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a surety warrant for arrest and the searches conducted following his arrest.

The applicant argued breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that although the surety warrant was not properly executed through the required procedure (the accused did not go into actual custody), it remained validly in existence on the CPIC system and grounded a lawful arrest.

The court rejected all Charter arguments, finding no breach of section 9 (arbitrary arrest), no breach of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) for either the pat-down search or the strip search, and no breach of section 10 (right to counsel).

The evidence was admitted at trial.