Caolán Moore

The offender was sentenced for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order, having been acquitted of attempted murder based on self-defence.

The court considered the offender's lived experiences with anti-Black racism, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including COVID-19 lockdowns, and his lack of prior firearm convictions.

A total sentence of 40 months was imposed, reduced to 15 months remaining after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The accused, Krishna Arora, pleaded guilty to four counts of forcible confinement and one count of extortion with a firearm.

The offences involved confining four individuals and extorting $1.75 million from a lawyer by threatening violence and using firearms.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness of the crimes, the use of firearms, and the significant trauma to victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's personal circumstances, lack of extensive criminal record, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence sought three years.

The court imposed a total effective sentence of eight years imprisonment, including credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

Ancillary orders for DNA, firearm prohibition, forfeiture, victim fine surcharge, and restitution were also made.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and firearms possession offences following a shooting in a commercial parking lot.

The accused shot his cousin after the cousin lunged at him, allegedly armed with a knife.

The court found the accused acted in lawful self-defence when he discharged the firearm, resulting in acquittals on the shooting-related charges.

However, the court held that the accused did not act in self-defence when he initially took possession of the loaded firearm from a friend, as there was no imminent threat at that time.

The accused was found guilty of possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce a video chronology prepared by police.

The chronology compiled still shots from extensive surveillance video, adding identifying information, circles, arrows, and short neutral descriptions.

The defence objected, arguing the video itself is the only admissible evidence and the chronology amounted to Crown advocacy.

The court ruled the video chronology admissible as a demonstrative aid to assist the jury in comprehending voluminous and complex video evidence.

The court held that such summaries are permissible if they are neutral, introduced through a witness who can be cross-examined, and accompanied by limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused were charged with first-degree murder.

At the outset of the trial, two of the accused brought an application to exclude cellphone video recordings showing them celebrating at a nightclub hours after the shooting, arguing the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The Crown argued the videos were probative of their relationship, their presence together after the shooting, and their state of mind.

The court found the videos highly probative of the accused's identity, relationship, and state of mind, and concluded that the probative value strongly outweighed any general prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the videos were ruled admissible subject to agreed-upon editing.

During a trial for first degree murder, the Crown brought an application to adduce a post-arrest statement made by the accused to the police.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the legal advice he received from duty counsel and his own lawyer.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused was advised of his rights multiple times, spoke to counsel three times, and clearly understood the advice.

The court also ruled the statement was admissible in the Crown's case-in-chief, as there was independent evidence of fabrication to support its use as after-the-fact conduct evidence.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their jury trial.

The court balanced fair trial considerations against courtroom security.

Given that the accused were detained in custody, had histories of institutional misconduct, and there was hostility between the co-accused, the court found that security concerns outweighed the potential prejudice of sitting in the dock.

The application was dismissed.

The three accused were jointly charged with first-degree murder.

One of the accused gave a post-arrest video statement to the police implicating himself and his co-accused.

The accused brought pre-trial applications to redact portions of the statement, and two of the accused alternatively sought to sever their trials.

The court granted the redactions consented to by the Crown but refused further redactions, finding the contested portions highly probative of the maker's involvement and credibility.

The court dismissed the application for severance, holding that the strong policy preference for joint trials applied and that a mid-trial and final jury instruction would adequately cure any reasoning prejudice to the co-accused.

The Crown brought an application at the outset of a first-degree murder trial to admit six utterances made by the deceased shortly after being shot.

The court analyzed the admissibility of the statements under the dying declaration exception, the spontaneous utterance exception, and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that while only the statements made to police qualified as dying declarations, all six utterances were admissible as spontaneous utterances and under the principled approach to hearsay, as the pressure of the shooting excluded the possibility of concoction or distortion.

Motaz Haj pleaded guilty to two counts of fentanyl trafficking, one to an undercover officer and one as a party to a sale that resulted in a fatal overdose.

The court considered a joint submission for a six-year sentence, with the primary issue being the credit for pre-sentence custody, particularly concerning harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized the devastating impact of fentanyl and the victim's death as aggravating factors, balanced against the guilty plea, remorse, and difficult custody conditions.

The judge ultimately accepted the joint submission for a six-year sentence, crediting the offender with time served, including enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and a further credit for harsh conditions, followed by a two-year probation period.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown's case relied on strong circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and surveillance video, suggesting the accused lured the victim to a meeting where he was shot by a co-accused.

The court found the accused met the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record, and the proposed sureties, including his mother in whose home loaded handguns were found, were deemed incapable of supervising him.

The court also held that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The accused was found lying in a backyard suffering from a gunshot wound following a gunfight in a residential neighbourhood.

A loaded prohibited firearm was found nearby.

The Crown's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The court found significant gaps in the evidence, including unreliable police testimony regarding the exact location of the firearm and the presence of multiple other individuals involved in the shootout.

The court concluded there were reasonable inferences other than guilt, such as the firearm being left by another participant, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

In a sexual assault prosecution, the Crown sought admission of a DVD-recorded statement for use in cross-examination if the accused testified.

The court held the statement was obtained in a manner connected to a conceded s. 9 Charter breach arising from the police decision to keep the accused for interview despite knowing he would not be brought before a justice within the 24-hour limit in s. 503 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the police conduct very serious, the impact on the accused's liberty interests significant, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits insufficient to outweigh exclusion, particularly given the statement was not part of the Crown's main case.

The court excluded the statement under s. 24(2) and found it unnecessary to decide the alleged s. 10(b) breach.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, and other offences, sought a bail review after being detained for two years.

The court found that the prolonged pre-trial custody constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

The court concluded that the applicant was releasable on the secondary ground, as the proposed plan of 24/7 house arrest with two sureties was sufficient to mitigate the risk of re-offending.

Furthermore, balancing the tertiary ground factors, including the strength of the Crown's case and the gravity of the offences against the strict release plan and the applicant's lack of a criminal record, the court held that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant was ordered released on strict conditions.

The accused, M.J.I., sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the initial detention order was inappropriate, the proposed release plan was strengthened, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error in the initial detention and deemed the revised release plan insufficient on its own.

However, considering the accused's serious injuries, restricted mobility, asthma, and increased vulnerability to COVID-19 in custody, the court determined that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

M.J.I. was ordered released on house arrest with three sureties and electronic monitoring, subject to specific conditions.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (a flick knife) found during a police search of his pants pocket.

The accused brought an application to exclude the knife pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police detention of the accused became unlawful when he was removed from the van without proper grounds, and that the accused was denied access to counsel of choice throughout his detention.

The court excluded the knife as evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference with a person under 14, and one count of invitation to sexual touching with a person under 16.

The defence sought to cross-examine a police officer at the preliminary hearing regarding redacted emails between York Regional Police and the Crown's office, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The defence argued that if privilege was asserted, the court could review the redacted materials to determine whether privilege actually applied.

The court dismissed the application, holding that disclosure and privilege disputes are not within the jurisdiction of a preliminary hearing court and that the defence was attempting indirectly to circumvent disclosure rules that are reserved for the trial court.