B. Richards

The court sentenced Neng Jia Jin for the first degree murder of Vanessa Kurpiewska and the attempted murder of Sulakshana Srijeyarah, both committed on December 8, 2022, on Toronto public transit.

Jin pleaded guilty, avoiding a lengthy trial.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years was imposed for murder, and 20 years’ imprisonment (concurrent) for attempted murder.

The court reviewed the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles, emphasizing the gravity of the offences, the profound impact on victims and the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant, Anh Chiem, charged with first-degree murder, sought to quash a production order compelling the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) to disclose her complaints against the deceased lawyer.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing under s. 487.0193 of the Criminal Code, as only the party ordered to produce (the LSO) could initiate such a challenge.

The court also held that the Criminal Code provisions for production orders operate independently of the Law Society Act's disclosure criteria, and that issues of privilege or incrimination are addressed within the Code's framework or at the admissibility stage.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in an unprovoked and fatal beating of a stranger.

Patrick Smith was convicted of second degree murder and assault, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 12-year parole ineligibility period.

Matthew Moreira was convicted of manslaughter and robbery, and was sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offenders' backgrounds, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Ian Ohab was convicted of second-degree murder and pleaded guilty to indignity to a human body.

The victim, Melissa Cooper, was killed and dismembered by Ohab, who then disposed of her body parts.

The Crown sought a 25-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence proposed 15-18 years.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, Ohab's meticulous concealment of the crime, the dismemberment and disposal of the body, and his disturbing criminal record of violence against women.

Mitigating factors were minimal, with Ohab showing no remorse and continuing to deny the murder.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 22 years, plus a concurrent 5-year sentence for indignity to a human body.

Ian Ohab, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the first-degree murder count.

The Crown argued that evidence of sexual assault and forcible confinement provided the basis for first-degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court, applying the test for a directed verdict, found no evidence capable of supporting an inference of sexual assault or unlawful confinement.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the accused will stand trial for second-degree murder only.

The defendant, Bradley Cheveldayoff, was sentenced for manslaughter after being acquitted of second-degree murder.

The incident involved a physical altercation followed by Cheveldayoff shooting the unarmed victim, Gabriel Nikov, six times in the back as he walked away.

The court considered Cheveldayoff's violent criminal record, his disregard for court orders (carrying a firearm while prohibited), and the severe impact on the victim's family.

While acknowledging the initial provocation, the court found a significant disconnect between the scuffle and the fatal shooting.

The Crown sought 18-19 years and delayed parole, while the defence sought 8-12 years and opposed delayed parole.

The court imposed a sentence of 16 years, reduced to 12 years after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh detention conditions, but declined to impose delayed parole under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code, finding the overall sentence sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

This decision addresses two applications within a second-degree murder trial.

First, the defence sought an order compelling the Crown to call a witness, Malique Kamara, whose statements were inconsistent and whose latest account radically contradicted previous versions.

The court dismissed this application, affirming the Crown's prosecutorial discretion and the absence of a duty to call a witness it deems unreliable, even if previously indicated.

Second, the defence applied to have the partial defence of provocation left to the jury.

The court granted this application, finding that there was an "air of reality" to the subjective elements of suddenness and loss of control, and a "real doubt" regarding whether an ordinary person subjected to the assault would form the intention to commit murder and act upon it, thus warranting the defence to be considered by the jury.

In a second-degree murder trial, the court adjudicated four evidentiary applications.

The defence was permitted to introduce evidence of the deceased's prior violent disposition to support self-defence or provocation, with a corresponding right for the Crown to adduce reply evidence of the accused's violent antecedents to ensure trial fairness.

A hearsay utterance by the deceased, indicating an intent to rob the accused, was admitted under the "statement of present intention" exception, satisfying necessity and reliability criteria despite witness inconsistencies.

Lay opinion evidence was largely excluded, save for an observation of the accused's emotional state.

Finally, a post-offence video depicting the accused re-enacting the shooting was deemed admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identity and to rebut self-defence.

Three accused were charged jointly with first degree murder in the beating death of Zaher Nourredine and robbery of Mitchell Conery.

The Crown relied on section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for murder and section 231(5)(e) for first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter and robbery but opposed committal on first degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on first degree murder and robbery, applying the Sheppard test and finding that the evidence supported inferences of the requisite mens rea for murder and that the confinement of one victim (Conery) was a separate and distinct act from the murder of the other victim (Nourredine), satisfying the requirements of constructive first degree murder under the multiple victim scenario established in R. v. Russell.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.