Cheryl Dianne Gzik

The court sentenced Mouhamad Al Jalmoud for two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and one count of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, following a jury trial.

The jury found him not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for three related counts of failing to stop after an accident.

The court reviewed the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

Al Jalmoud was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months in custody (after credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions), with a 15-year driving prohibition to follow, and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the impact of mental illness on moral culpability, the range of sentences for similar offences, and the significance of both aggravating and mitigating factors.

Michael Mikhail pleaded guilty to three counts of surreptitiously making visual recordings for a sexual purpose (voyeurism) and one count of distributing an intimate image without consent.

The offences involved multiple unknown female victims at a gym and a former intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature, multiple victims, prolonged period of offending, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, no prior record, family support, and efforts to address mental health.

The court rejected a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence.

A global sentence of 15 months jail was imposed, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, and a DNA order.

The accused, Tony Gordon, pleaded guilty to choking while committing an assault and breach of probation.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of 18 months jail, but the court found this too low, considering it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 3 years less a day, comprising 2 years less a day for the assault and a consecutive 1-year sentence for the breach of probation, after considering Gladue principles, the victim impact, and the accused's extensive criminal record.

The accused, Hemraj Lakhan, was charged with sexual assault and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant, K.L., consented to the sexual touching.

The court found K.L. to be a credible witness but had significant concerns about the reliability of her testimony due to memory issues, admitted drug use around the time of the incident, and inconsistent/contradictory statements during cross-examination, including agreeing that her initial claim of non-consent was "make believe" and that she had initiated sex.

Despite corroborating evidence of sexual contact (DNA) and the complainant's distraught post-event demeanour, the court determined that the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused, charged with abduction and attempted abduction of two children, brought pre-trial motions to exclude oral and video statements made to police, as well as evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to search warrants.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of the Charter.

However, the court found that a second search warrant, which authorized the seizure of items previously denied by a Justice of the Peace in a first warrant application, violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the items not authorized by the first warrant under s. 24(2).

The applicant, Jeremy McDermott, charged with robbery and weapons offences, sought to exclude evidence (seized items, informal utterances, and formal statement) under ss. 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to counsel.

The court found that while the police properly informed McDermott of his rights at the scene, there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of over two hours at the police station in facilitating his access to duty counsel.

This delay constituted a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant factors, the court determined that the police conduct was not deliberate or systemic, and the weapons and spontaneous utterances were not causally or temporally connected to the breach, thus admissible.

However, the formal video statement, being self-incriminating evidence obtained after a significant denial of the right to counsel, was excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar act evidence against Geoffrey Burnet, who was charged with three counts of exposing his genital organs to persons under 14 for a sexual purpose.

The alleged incidents involved two young complainants, K.C. and K.A., occurring at Burnet's residence in similar circumstances, including a private setting, specific clothing, and contemporaneous viewing of pornography.

The court applied the R. v. Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudice.

Despite a temporal gap between incidents, the court found sufficient similarities to establish a specific propensity and objective improbability of coincidence, making the evidence probative to the actus reus and the complainants' credibility.

Given it was a judge-alone trial, the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice was deemed minimized.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused, a paternal grandfather, was charged with manslaughter in the death of a 13-month-old child in his care.

The child suffered a fatal traumatic brain injury while under the accused's supervision.

The Crown alleged the accused violently shook the child and impacted the child's head against a hard surface.

The defence contended the child's injuries resulted from an accidental collision with a large family dog.

The court found the accused guilty of manslaughter, rejecting the defence theory as internally inconsistent, medically implausible, and unsupported by credible evidence.

The court determined the accused assaulted the child through violent shaking, which constituted the unlawful act causing death.

A 17-year-old youth charged with second-degree murder in connection with a fatal stabbing during an armed robbery sought release pending trial.

The Crown opposed release, arguing detention was necessary for public protection and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that while the Crown's case was strong regarding the robbery, viable defences existed to the murder charge.

The court released the youth on a recognizance with sureties, finding that detention was not justified on either the secondary or tertiary ground under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The applicants, co-accused in a first-degree murder trial, sought to admit an audio statement made by their co-accused, Joshua Barreira, for the truth of its contents.

Joshua's statement suggested that the shooter acted in a drug-induced frenzy without the prior knowledge or intent of the other accused, potentially exonerating some and reducing the shooter's liability.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring necessity and reliability, and considered a relaxed standard of admissibility for defence evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Finding necessity met due to Joshua's election not to testify, and sufficient indicia of reliability under a relaxed standard, the court ruled that Joshua's audio statement was admissible for the truth of its contents on behalf of the applicants.

This mid-trial ruling addresses Corbett applications by three accused (Brandon Barreira, Chad Davidson, and Joshua Barreira) in a first-degree murder trial.

Brandon and Chad sought to exclude their criminal convictions from cross-examination, while Joshua sought reconsideration of a previous ruling regarding his convictions.

The court applied the Corbett factors, balancing the probative value of the records against their prejudicial effect.

For Brandon and Chad, their youth records were excluded due to their age, similarity to adult convictions, and the policy objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

However, their adult criminal records were deemed admissible due to a continuous pattern of criminal conduct relevant to credibility.

Joshua's request to edit specific convictions (possession of firearm/ammunition contrary to prohibition order and counsel to commit murder) was denied, as the court found the full description relevant to his credibility and not overly prejudicial given the trial context.

This corrigendum clarifies a mid-trial ruling regarding the admissibility of a composite video.

It corrects the reference to Mr. Michael Plaxton, a certified forensic video analyst, from 'Officer Plaxton' to 'Mr. Plaxton', noting that he is a civilian despite potentially being a peace officer.

This change does not alter the substance of the original ruling.

In a first-degree murder trial involving multiple co-accused, Joshua Barreira applied for remedies to address alleged procedural unfairness arising from the alphabetical order of names on the indictment.

He sought rights to re-cross-examine witnesses, an alternating order of cross-examination with co-accused Chad Davidson, and changes to the order of leading evidence and jury addresses.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tactical disadvantages were inherent in the adversarial process and did not meet the high threshold for fundamental unfairness.

The court also determined that re-cross-examination was not warranted as the matters raised were foreseeable.

This ruling addresses a defence application to edit three statements made by accused Joshua Barreira, which were previously ruled admissible in his first-degree murder trial.

The court considered principles of post-offence conduct, the right to silence, and the probative value versus prejudicial effect of various parts of the statements.

The judge ordered specific redactions from Statement #1 and Statement #2, including references to past criminal activity, irrelevant personal comments, and discussions about police taking information to the Crown for a potential deal.

The court also ruled that Joshua's willingness to undergo a polygraph test was admissible, given the parties' agreement and the lack of substantial prejudicial effect.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of the accuseds' spouses' convictions for accessory after the fact to murder and evidence of the accuseds' joint marriages, and to prevent adverse inferences from the marriages.

The court ruled that the spouses' convictions were admissible for credibility purposes with a strong jury caution, as their probative value outweighed prejudicial effect.

The court also found the events leading to and details of the joint marriages admissible to show relationships and rebut innocent association, but prohibited the Crown from arguing an adverse inference of consciousness of guilt from the marriages themselves, citing spousal privilege and lack of clear evidence on the purpose of marriage.

This pre-trial motion addressed the Crown's application to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct against the accused, Joshua Barreira and Chad Davidson, in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the R. v. Handy framework, balancing the probative value against the prejudicial effect of each piece of evidence.

For Joshua Barreira, evidence of his suspended driver's license, drug trafficking proximate to the murder, criminal associations with co-accused, and dreams about the deceased was admitted as part of the narrative or to rebut innocent association.

However, evidence of his general marijuana use, past drug financing, owning a 'crack house,' prior jail records with Davidson, and specific past convictions for firearms and counsel to commit murder were deemed inadmissible due to higher prejudicial effect or lack of probative value.

For Chad Davidson, evidence of his criminal associations with the Barreira family, admissions to Marta Leite regarding the murder, and specific photos for identification purposes were admitted.

Conversely, allegations of a past home invasion, certain tattoo evidence (handguns, 'NMIF'), an uncontextualized admission to a fellow inmate, and his armed robbery conviction were excluded.

The court emphasized the importance of narrative evidence and rebutting innocent association while strictly scrutinizing evidence for propensity.

The Crown sought to admit identification evidence from two witnesses to identify Chad Davidson as the shooter on surveillance video in a first-degree murder trial.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this lay opinion evidence under the Leaney/Brown "prior acquaintance/better position" test.

The court found that both witnesses had sufficient familiarity with Davidson and an articulable basis for their identification, primarily based on his mannerisms and walk, in addition to clothing.

The court also ruled that a concession made by defence counsel at the preliminary hearing regarding committal had no probative value at trial.

The identification evidence was deemed admissible.

This voir dire ruling addresses the admissibility of inculpatory statements made by Joshua Barreira to police following his arrest for first-degree murder.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to police oppression (cold, sickness, hunger, exhaustion, denial of right to silence) and inducements related to his wife and brother's arrests.

The court found no oppression, noting Barreira was a "savvy and experienced individual" who understood his rights and repeatedly attempted to negotiate a deal.

The court also determined that the idea of a false confession to protect family members was self-generated by Barreira, and the police officer's actions did not constitute improper inducements.

Consequently, the statements were deemed voluntary and admissible at trial, subject to editing out references to Barreira's criminal record.

Four accused were charged with first degree murder in the death of the victim, who was shot in the chest on November 30, 2013.

One accused conceded committal.

The remaining three accused contested committal.

The Crown's theory was that the accused, motivated by prior animus, planned and deliberately ambushed and murdered the victim with the assistance of an accused who possessed a firearm.

The court examined extensive surveillance video evidence, cell phone records, and witness testimony to determine whether sufficient evidence existed for committal on first degree murder charges.

The court found that the evidence, largely circumstantial, supported inferences that the three accused collectively planned and deliberately executed the murder and committed to the enterprise without resiling from it.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and faced three previous trials.

The first trial resulted in a conviction that was overturned on appeal due to a Charter breach.

The second and third trials resulted in hung juries.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings to prevent a fourth trial.

The court considered factors including the length of time elapsed, the time the accused spent in custody, the strength of the Crown's case, and the presumption of innocence.

The court concluded that requiring a fourth trial would stretch the community's sense of fair play and decency beyond the breaking point, constituting an abuse of process under section 7 of the Charter.

A stay of proceedings was granted.