Calvin Barry

The offender, Domonic Andre Mudahy, pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery.

The first involved a Rogers store, where he acted as the driver, and the second involved a Best Buy, where he was also the driver and not directly involved in the kidnapping or entry.

The second offence was committed while on bail for the first.

The court considered his youth, lack of prior record, and community involvement as mitigating factors, alongside significant pre-sentence custody credit (including enhanced Summers credit and Duncan/Marshall credit for harsh conditions).

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the robberies, the vulnerability of the victims, the sophisticated planning, and the commission of a new offence while on bail.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the serious and prevalent nature of such violent commercial robberies.

A global sentence of 5 years in the penitentiary was imposed, with 20 months deducted for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 40 months.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, sought authorization under ss. 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code to use Human Rights Tribunal documents at trial.

The court ruled that the Human Rights Tribunal application and reply, being public filings, did not constitute "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, and therefore did not require vetting under the s. 278.92 regime.

The defence was permitted to use the redacted Tribunal documents at trial.

The defendant, G.B., was found guilty after a judge-alone trial of one count of Sexual Interference (s.151 Criminal Code) and one count of Invitation to Sexual Touching (s.152 Criminal Code) involving his daughter, H.B., over a protracted period from ages 7-8 to 13-14.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, giving particular weight to the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9.

Aggravating factors included abuse of a position of trust (father-daughter relationship), the victim being under 18, and the repeated nature of the abuse.

The sole mitigating factor was the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence must predominate in such cases.

Nick Cvetas pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having stolen $317,000 from his 81-year-old godmother, Nevenka Cemas, between 2015 and 2016.

The theft involved a significant breach of trust, as Cvetas was her joint account holder, Power of Attorney, and executor.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors (breach of trust, vulnerability of victim, planned nature of offence, repeated lies) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, prior good character, community support, full restitution).

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, rejecting a conditional sentence despite restitution.

Cvetas was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, followed by two years probation with a no-contact condition, and a five-year prohibition from having authority over others' money/property, with exceptions for supervised employment or immediate family.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death following a collision on May 15, 2018, that resulted in the death of Jonas Mitchell.

At the preliminary inquiry, the court found that while the Crown could establish the actus reus (the dangerous act of entering an intersection on a red light), it could not establish the required mens rea (mental element) of a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The court discharged the accused, finding that momentary inattention for approximately nine to ten seconds, without evidence of speeding, deliberate red-light running, or erratic maneuvers, did not constitute the criminal fault required for dangerous driving.

The court emphasized that carelessness alone is insufficient for criminal liability and that the consequences of the accident, while tragic, cannot drive the charge when the manner of driving does not meet the criminal threshold.

The Crown applied to exclude the public from the courtroom pursuant to section 486(1) of the Criminal Code while the complainant testified at a preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including extortion, sexual assault, invitation to touch, permitting a person under 16 to be in premises for sexual activity, sexual interference, and defamatory libel.

The complainant, a member of the Afghan community, feared serious repercussions including physical violence and social isolation if her identity became known.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the complainant had a genuine and objectively reasonable fear for her physical safety and that excluding the public was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

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.

The offender pleaded guilty to eight counts of aggravated assault after injecting silicone into the buttocks of multiple victims while falsely advertising the procedure as PMMA injections.

The unauthorized procedures were performed in non-medical settings and caused severe infections, disfigurement, and life-threatening complications for the victims.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years' imprisonment, less 33 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for preying on vulnerable victims for financial gain.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought a fifteen-month jail sentence, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence of ninety days plus probation.

The court imposed an eleven-month jail sentence with a two-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing considered the serious injuries to the victim, including permanent disability and chronic pain, balanced against the defendant's own significant injuries from the collision, his guilty plea, community service, and remorse.

The court rejected the defence position that the defendant's medical condition warranted an intermittent sentence, finding that while medical factors could place the defendant lower in the sentencing range, they did not justify a fundamentally different outcome.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon following an incident on August 21, 2011, at the back of his restaurant.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting he believed the complainant was the individual who had burglarized his van four days earlier.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and determined he acted out of anger and mistaken identity rather than in genuine self-defence.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

The accused was charged with stunt racing contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving at 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401, exceeding the speed limit by 61 km/h.

The Crown relied on Lidar speed detection evidence from a trained officer.

The defence challenged the accuracy of the Lidar reading and suggested the officer's vehicle was moving when the reading was taken.

The court found stunt racing to be a strict liability offence with a due diligence defence available.

The Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A witness observed the accused driving erratically, swerving into oncoming traffic, striking pylons, and eventually driving off the roadway into a ditch.

Police observed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, unsteadiness, and balance problems.

The accused testified that he drove off the road while reaching for a dropped cellphone.

The court found the accused not credible, accepted the evidence of the independent witness and police officers, and found the accused guilty based on the pattern of dangerous driving and physical signs of impairment.

The accused was charged with two counts: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b).

The trial proceeded as a blended Charter application and trial.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on grounds of alleged violations of s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no Charter violations.

On the substantive charges, the court accepted the defence evidence regarding the accused's alcohol consumption pattern and found that the defence had raised a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the breath readings on the over 80 count.

On the impaired operation count, the court found the evidence equivocal and that the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.