Brett Moodie

R.O., a 14-year-old at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of 14-year-old Devan Selvey.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the senseless nature of the crime and R.O.'s flight, and mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea and significant personal challenges.

Applying the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles, particularly diminished moral culpability and rehabilitation, the court accepted a joint submission for the maximum youth sentence: a seven-year Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) order, comprising four years in custody (with 24 months credit for pre-sentence custody) and three years under conditional supervision, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and no-contact order.

The young person, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application for directions regarding jury selection procedures.

The case had attracted significant pretrial publicity.

The court established a comprehensive jury selection protocol, including liberal pre-screening, specific anti-bias instructions, and a focused challenge for cause process to address potential partiality from media exposure.

The trial judge determined she would ask the challenge questions and adjudicate the challenges individually with other prospective jurors excluded.

The Crown brought an application for an order permitting court security officers to place soft, silent shackles on the young person during his trial for second-degree murder.

The young person opposed the use of shackles, arguing that enhanced procedural protections under the Youth Criminal Justice Act required the least restrictive measures.

The court granted the application, finding that silent shackles balanced the need for courtroom security and the prevention of escape with the young person's dignity and the presumption of innocence, as the shackles would not be visible to the jury.

The accused, Gyver James-Park, was charged with assault causing bodily harm following three altercations with the complainant, Jessica Jones, at a festival.

The altercations were sparked by the accused's transphobic comments towards the complainant.

The trial involved conflicting witness testimony, with the court finding many witnesses, including the accused, to be untruthful or unreliable.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. framework for credibility assessment.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inability to resolve the conflicting evidence regarding how the altercations started and who initiated them.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant, Nikita Vorontsov, sought a stay of proceedings for sexual assault due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 27 months and 26 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court deducted 28 days for defence delay related to pre-trial scheduling and 8 days for Legal Aid issues.

The primary issue was the deduction for COVID-19 as a discrete event.

The Crown argued for a full deduction from May 2020 to March 2021, which would bring the delay within limits.

However, the court, distinguishing from R. v. Simmons, found the Crown failed to demonstrate reasonable mitigation efforts during the pandemic.

The court limited the COVID-19 deduction to the period from the original trial date (May 8, 2020) to the completion of the mandatory COVID judicial pre-trial (November 18, 2020), resulting in a net delay of 20 months and 9 days, which remained presumptively unreasonable.

Consequently, the proceedings were stayed.

This decision contains pre-charge conference rulings in a first-degree murder trial involving two accused.

The court addressed two main issues: the Crown's request to include constructive first-degree murder under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code as a route of liability, and Mr. Smich's request for a Vetrovec warning regarding certain Crown witnesses.

The court denied the Crown's request for constructive murder, finding no air of reality to unlawful confinement distinct from the killing.

It also denied Mr. Smich's request for a Vetrovec warning for the specified witnesses, concluding that the jury would be capable of assessing their credibility with general instructions.

However, the court granted Mr. Millard's counsel's request for a caution regarding Mr. Smich's testimony where it implicates Mr. Millard.

The applicants, Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, sought an order prohibiting or delaying the publication of all evidence, submissions, and rulings made during their ongoing first-degree murder trial (Bosma case) and in the absence of the jury, until the completion of their separate trial for the murder of Laura Babcock.

The Crown and a Media Coalition opposed the broad scope of the requested ban, arguing that open court principles should apply and that jury safeguards provide adequate protection.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, requiring a convincing evidentiary basis for a serious risk of prejudice that cannot be addressed by alternative measures.

The court granted the publication ban in part, extending it to specific mid-trial voir dire rulings and objections deemed to have a direct impact on the Babcock case and the applicants' fair trial rights, particularly concerning the "Eliminator" device and the transmission of letters from jail, as well as matters potentially affecting Ms. Noudga's fair trial rights.

The accused applied for judicial interim release on charges of second degree murder and arson arising from a contract arson of a variety store that resulted in a death.

The court found the Crown's circumstantial case to be strong and the proposed release plan involving family supervision to be inadequate.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding the accused failed to show cause for release on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop for a red light contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Bristol Road and Hurontario Street in Mississauga when the defendant's pickup truck struck a high school student riding a bicycle in a pedestrian crosswalk.

The central issue was whether the defendant's vehicle crossed the stop line when the traffic light was red or yellow.

The court found the defendant's testimony that he crossed on a yellow light to be self-serving and incredible, and determined based on credible witness testimony and circumstantial evidence regarding traffic light timing that the defendant crossed the stop line when the light had been red for approximately 2.5 to 3.5 seconds.

The defendant was convicted.