Cheryl Rose Blondell

This ruling addresses a defence application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of prior consensual sexual activity between the accused and the complainant in a historical sexual assault case.

The accused sought to introduce the evidence to contextualize his actions and challenge the complainant's credibility regarding the nature of their prior relationship, arguing that without it, his conduct would appear unexplained.

The Crown and complainant opposed, asserting it would invite "twin myths." The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible as it was fundamental to the coherence of the defence narrative and not being adduced for prohibited purposes, drawing parallels to R. v. Temertzoglou.

The decision emphasizes the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The total delay was 1,407 days (46 months and 7 days), exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court found the primary cause of delay was the Crown/police's failure to timely provide cellphone extraction reports or return the applicant's phone, which was crucial for the defence.

Despite some periods of defence unavailability, the court determined the state delay was significant and the defence acted reasonably.

The application was granted, and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

Shiva Ashkani, who falsely presented herself as a registered nurse and medical cosmetician, was found guilty after trial of multiple assaultive offences, including aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, threatening bodily harm, and fraud under $5,000.

The offences involved injecting Botox and fillers and applying chemical peels, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries to victims.

Ashkani had a prior criminal record for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon and exhibited no remorse, believing herself to be the victim.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as Ashkani's mental health issues.

A total sentence of two years less a day incarceration, with credit for pre-trial custody, and three years of probation was imposed, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault arising from a stabbing incident on January 27, 2012, where he stabbed his domestic partner three times and a bystander once.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender (indeterminate) designation.

The court found a clear pattern of repetitive violent behaviour spanning the offender's youth and adult criminal records.

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender (determinate) rather than indeterminate, imposing a global sentence of seven years custody with a credit of 1,657 days for pre-sentence custody and an additional 90-day credit for harsh conditions of confinement, resulting in 810 days further custody.

A Long-Term Supervision Order for 10 years was imposed.

The court applied Gladue/Ipeelee principles throughout, recognizing the offender's traumatic background rooted in intergenerational residential school trauma, childhood abuse and neglect, and substance abuse issues.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision in which the Crown sought committal for trial on charges of defrauding the public and money laundering.

The accused, self-represented, called 35 witnesses in addition to the Crown's 19 witnesses over 25 partial or full days of court time.

The court found that the Crown had established an extremely strong, if not overwhelming, prima facie case of fraud based on evidence that the accused's business operations deteriorated from late 2010 onward, with the accused attempting to involve new investors to cover mounting obligations while evading inquiries from existing investors.

The court also found sufficient evidence of money laundering based on banking documents.

The accused was committed for trial on both charges.

A 12-year-old youth was arrested at school following the discovery of a firearm and ammunition in his backpack.

At the police station, he was subjected to a strip search conducted by Toronto Police Service officers.

The court found that the manner in which the strip search was conducted violated the youth's Charter rights under section 8 (protection against unreasonable search).

Specifically, the officers failed to follow mandated procedures requiring that a detainee not be left completely naked during the search process, as established in R. v. Golden.

The court found that the decision to order the strip search itself was not unconstitutional, but the manner of execution was.

Given a pattern of similar breaches by Toronto Police Service officers over the preceding decade and the lack of effective remedial response, the court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the deceased victim to police officers, firefighters, and paramedics shortly after a stabbing.

The defence objected on the basis that the statements were hearsay.

The court considered whether the statements qualified as dying declarations, res gestae statements, or were admissible under the principled approach to hearsay.

The judge concluded that although the strict requirements for dying declarations were not met, the statements were admissible as res gestae and also satisfied the necessity and reliability requirements of the principled hearsay exception.