Brennan Sacevich

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges including uttering threats, criminal harassment, and assault.

Relying on psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to cognitive and language impairments.

The Board ordered that the accused be detained at the hospital with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation, subject to conditions including a weapons prohibition and no-contact orders.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for failing to stop for police and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The hospital and the Attorney General initially sought a continuation of the conditional discharge, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused was medication compliant, functioning well in the community, and had been accepted by a non-forensic community support team.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of breach of probation after the victim was found with severe head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance videos and the accused's statement to police.

The court found the video evidence insufficient to prove the accused caused the severe injuries, as another unidentified individual was seen assaulting the victim.

However, the court found the accused guilty of a separate, lesser included offence of common assault captured on video, and consequently guilty of breaching his probation orders.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a .22 calibre rifle was discharged four times in a hospital parking lot, striking the tires of three parked vehicles.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance tracking the accused's vehicle and expert forensic evidence matching the spent casings to a rifle found in the accused's possession upon arrest.

The court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty of careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, while the charge of discharging a firearm with recklessness was adjourned to address an error in the indictment.

Antonio Manzo was charged with four firearms-related counts stemming from an incident on May 6, 2020, where a Toyota Tundra was shot multiple times.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including civilian observations of the accused's vehicle near the scene, the subsequent discovery of a firearm (Ruger rifle) in his possession, and forensic evidence linking a spent shell casing from the scene to the Ruger.

The court found all Crown witnesses credible and concluded that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the accused fired the Ruger at the Tundra, causing the damage.

Manzo was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant, Brent Mehagan, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including five counts of making child pornography, one count of criminal harassment, and five counts of voyeurism involving over 240 victims.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the systematic and covert nature of the crimes, the large number of victims, the significant psychological impact on victims and the community, and the defendant's prior related conviction for possession of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included the voluntary plea, acknowledgment of the scope of harm, expressed remorse, and engagement in counselling.

Gladue factors were also considered due to the defendant's Indigenous background and disassociation from cultural roots.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly for child-related offenses, while also considering the defendant's progress towards rehabilitation.

A total sentence of 38 months imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and onerous house arrest conditions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sample, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, a 10-year prohibition from certain public places and internet use for unlawful purposes or photographing females under 16, and forfeiture of seized devices.

The Indigenous offender was sentenced for a random robbery and assault with a weapon (stabbing) against two women in a drive-thru.

The court considered the offender's youth, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and significant Gladue factors, alongside his recent rehabilitative efforts and sobriety.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court rejected the Crown's proposed 30-36 month sentence and imposed the defence's proposed sentence of 2 years less a day, minus enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats following an incident where two women were attacked in a vehicle.

The primary issue at trial was identity, with the defence arguing that an acquaintance of the accused committed the offences.

During a blended voir dire, the court admitted the accused's video statement to police and Facebook Messenger group chat excerpts as evidence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing descriptions, and the accused's admissions in the group chat, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant.

The accused was found guilty of robbery and assault with a weapon, but acquitted of uttering threats.

The accused was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and breach of probation following a night of heavy drinking and drug use with the complainant and others.

The complainant alleged she woke up partially undressed and believed the accused had assaulted her while she was passed out, though she admitted to severe memory loss.

The accused testified that they had consensual sexual intercourse.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to extreme intoxication, memory loss, and inconsistencies in her statements about being choked.

Furthermore, DNA from an unknown male was found on the complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

This decision addresses an application under sections 276 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The accused sought to adduce evidence of prior consensual penetrative intercourse with the complainant to explain the presence of his DNA, and evidence of other male DNA found on the complainant to suggest an alternative perpetrator.

The court ruled that both types of evidence were admissible, with limitations, as they were relevant to issues at trial and had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, after considering the factors in subsection 276(3).

M.K. was convicted of indecent assault and sexual assault against his niece, R.K., occurring between 1981 and 1987 when R.K. was a minor.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, entering a conditional stay on the indecent assault charge and sentencing M.K. on the sexual assault conviction.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

Considering M.K.'s Indigenous background, advanced age, lack of criminal record, and the victim's impact statement, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The judge found M.K. showed no remorse and was a poor candidate for a conditional sentence, ultimately imposing a 15-month period of incarceration (less credit for pre-trial custody) followed by 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

Following a violent New Year's Day confrontation at a First Nation residence, the accused were tried on aggravated assault allegations arising from a group melee in a driveway.

The court found the sole direct identification evidence unreliable on the central issue of who struck the complainant, preferring other eyewitness evidence that pointed to another participant.

The court held the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused directly committed the aggravated assault or was liable as a party under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

One accused was nevertheless convicted of failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour based on his participation in the disturbance.

The defendants brought a motion in Small Claims Court to strike an amended plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent construction of an in-ground swimming pool.

The defendants argued the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs allegedly discovered their loss in 2009 and commenced the claim outside the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that it was not clear on the pleadings when the claim was discovered, particularly given allegations that the defendants continued attempting to remedy the deficiencies through 2010.

Because it was possible that a proceeding was not yet an appropriate means to remedy the dispute during ongoing repair efforts, the limitation defence was not virtually certain to succeed.

The court declined to strike the claim and left the limitation issue to be determined at trial.

The plaintiff, acting personally and as assignee of his brother's corporation, sued the defendants for damages arising from a failed fast-food franchise investment.

The plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant, acting through his holding company, maliciously interfered with the plaintiff's business by inducing subtenants to breach their contracts, unreasonably withdrawing consent to subleases, and secretly terminating the head lease for the restaurant premises.

The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract and inducing breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant personally liable due to his malicious and tortious conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded $144,228.69 in damages, including $100,000 in at-large damages for inducing breach of contract.

The plaintiff alleged that he and another individual formed a partnership with a third person to develop a nightclub and microbrewery venture, and that the defendants diverted the opportunity by securing a lease and operating the business themselves.

The plaintiff also claimed standing as assignee of the co‑venturer’s alleged cause of action through security agreements relating to unrelated debts.

The court found that the plaintiff was not a partner in the venture, noting his absence from key negotiations and documentation such as the letter of intent to lease.

The court further held that the co‑venturer’s refusal or inability to provide financing effectively constituted withdrawal from the partnership, permitting the remaining participant to proceed independently.

As a result, neither the co‑venturer nor the plaintiff as alleged assignee had a viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or diversion of opportunity.