Brian Irvine

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted David Hunte-Green of committing an indecent act in a public place and breaching probation.

The accused was found to have masturbated under his clothes in a public elevator in front of a witness, Ms. Ginsberg, without exposing his genitals.

The court carefully analyzed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused masturbated and whether such conduct constituted an indecent act under Canadian law.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's test for indecency from R. v. Labaye, the court found that the conduct caused harm to the victim's autonomy and safety, and was incompatible with the proper functioning of society, despite the absence of genital exposure.

The accused was also found guilty of breaching probation orders.

This criminal trial concerned a home invasion where the defendant, Bin Chen, was charged with aggravated assault (later reduced to assault causing bodily harm), robbery with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and break and enter with intent to commit robbery.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and the common purpose doctrine under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, as the complainants could not identify the intruders.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a home invasion occurred and that the alleged offences were committed.

Based on video surveillance, DNA evidence linking co-accused, and the defendant's presence at a planning meeting and the scene, the court inferred that the defendant was actively engaged in the home invasion as one of four intruders.

The defendant was found guilty on all four counts.

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 appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.

The 22-year-old offender was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, drug trafficking, and breaching a weapons prohibition order after his mother discovered drugs in his backpack and called the police.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of carrying a loaded handgun in public and breaching a prior order against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, genuine remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court imposed a global sentence of 1,335 days, reduced by 800 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by three years of probation.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

A young person pleaded guilty to procuring a person under 18 years of age to provide sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code.

The offender recruited a 12-year-old victim through Facebook and facilitated her exploitation in the sex trade over a 10-day period in Niagara Falls and Toronto.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a discharge with one year of probation, but the court rejected this as contrary to the public interest and inappropriate given the offender's lack of remorse, minimal engagement in rehabilitation programming while in custody, and serious criminal record including violent offences.

The court imposed 16 months of probation with strict conditions including mandatory counselling, non-association orders, and restrictions on social media access.

The defendants were charged with multiple offences relating to an alleged armed home invasion and robbery.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including security video footage, to place the defendants at the scene.

The defence argued that no home invasion occurred and that the occupants of the apartment staged the scene to cover up an accidental discharge of their own firearm.

The court found both the Crown's and the defence's theories equally plausible based on the physical evidence and witness testimony.

As the Crown failed to prove its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendants were found not guilty of all charges.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his system after police responded to a trouble call at a restaurant.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated through unlawful detention and search.

The initial detention by the first officer lacked lawful justification, being based on a vague safety concern rather than investigative grounds.

The subsequent detention and search by two other officers, who stopped and searched all vehicles leaving the scene, was excessive and unjustified given the nature of the incident (a fight with a bottle, not a weapons offense).

The accused was not informed of his right to counsel during the detention related to the fight investigation.

The breath samples were obtained as a direct result of these unlawful detentions and were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the breath evidence, the Crown could not prove the charge.

The accused was charged with possession of less than thirty grams of marijuana found in a sock thrown from a holding cell at the Etobicoke Courthouse.

The Crown relied on security camera footage to establish identification, showing an individual in cell 2-27 throwing the sock containing the contraband.

The court found that while the video depicted the alleged offense and showed the individual throwing the sock, the quality and clarity of the footage, combined with the individual's obscured face (due to cell bars and a pulled-up hoodie), was insufficient to establish identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with attempt abduction, sexual assault, sexual invitation, and assault with intent to resist arrest following an incident on a Toronto street where he abruptly stopped his vehicle in oncoming traffic and aggressively approached a 2½-year-old child while screaming.

The child's father physically intervened and restrained the accused until police arrived.

The court found the accused guilty of attempt abduction, simple assault (as an included offence to sexual assault), and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual invitation and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and oxycodone on his own admission.

The court concluded that although the accused intended to sexually assault the child, the mens rea and actus reus of sexual assault did not coincide temporally at the roadside, as the sexual assault was intended to occur at a later time after abduction.

The court ruled on the admissibility of a statement made by a young person (D.T.) to his school vice-principal regarding an alleged robbery.

The Crown and defence agreed that the vice-principal was a "person in authority," but the court disagreed.

The court found that the vice-principal was not a person in authority because she was not acting as an agent of the state, had no control over the police investigation, and was conducting an educational meeting rather than an interrogation.

The statement was therefore admissible as an admission rather than a confession requiring compliance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.