Christian Levien

This decision addresses the circumstantial evidence required to prove identity and knowledge in a theft of a motor vehicle case.

The court carefully analyzes surveillance footage, GPS data, and clothing evidence to determine that the accused, Philip McDonald, was the driver of a recently stolen Land Rover and knowingly possessed stolen property.

The doctrine of recent possession is applied to infer guilt in the absence of direct evidence of the theft.

The accused is also found guilty of being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence under section 351(d) of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of a former intimate partner.

The assault occurred while the victim was drowsy from medication in her own bed.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that the offender's guilty plea, deep remorse, lack of criminal record, and pro-social background were highly mitigating.

The court imposed a punitive conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served entirely on house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

The two offenders were convicted by a jury of a violent armed home invasion robbery and related firearms offences.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the planned home invasion and use of firearms, balanced against mitigating factors including the offenders' youthful status, expressions of remorse, and the significant impact of systemic anti-Black racism on their backgrounds as detailed in Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports.

The court applied the Morris framework to reduce their moral culpability and emphasize rehabilitation, sentencing the first offender to 9 years and the second offender to 7.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of D.R. on charges including assault, choking, confinement, and uttering threats against his spouse.

The trial judge had acquitted D.R., finding both the complainant and accused "convincing witnesses" and concluding that the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by admitting inadmissible collateral evidence and bad character evidence against the complainant, and by denying the Crown the opportunity to adduce bad character evidence against the accused.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the trial judge made some errors, these errors were not essential to the reasoning and had no material bearing on the acquittals, as the accused's convincing testimony alone was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Trista Forbes, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for stabbing her intimate partner during an argument.

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including intimate partner abuse and elements of a home invasion, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of criminal record, status as a single mother, history of abuse, and gainful employment.

Distinguishing the Crown's cited precedents, the court applied the criteria for conditional sentences from R. v. Proulx.

Concluding that a conditional sentence would not endanger community safety and was consistent with sentencing principles, the court imposed a nine-month conditional sentence with house arrest and curfew conditions, followed by one year of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused, Jaheim Allen-Brown, was convicted of aggravated assault after a trial, for viciously beating his girlfriend, Ms. Greentree, causing lasting disfiguring injuries.

Despite the victim's perjury, overwhelming evidence proved the assault.

Allen-Brown also breached non-communication conditions while in custody.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years incarceration, while the defence sought 12 months less time served.

The court considered Allen-Brown's youth, difficult background, extensive youth criminal record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including being shot and subsequent inadequate medical care in jail).

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, parity, and restraint, and considered the impact of anti-Black racism as per R. v. Morris.

While acknowledging the offence warranted a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years without mitigation, the court imposed a sentence of two years less one day incarceration to allow for a three-year probation period, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The offender, an African Canadian man, was convicted of aggravated assault after sucker-punching and stomping a defenceless victim outside a nightclub.

The court considered the impacts of systemic anti-Black racism and the lack of a formal Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) due to financial constraints.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the severity of the unprovoked attack, the court sentenced the offender to two years in a penitentiary, less three months credit for time spent on strict bail conditions.

This is a defence bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code, appealing a decision to detain the applicant on secondary and tertiary bail grounds.

The applicant proposed a new surety (grandmother), increased surety amount, more stringent house arrest, and GPS electronic monitoring as material changes in circumstances.

The court found a material change based on the new surety, applying a flexible approach to due diligence in bail reviews as per R. v. St. Cloud.

However, the court ultimately found the proposed plan and sureties insufficient to mitigate the significant public safety risk posed by the serious firearms and dangerous driving charges, dismissing the bail review application on secondary grounds.

The Crown charged three defendants with various offences arising from a police stop of a vehicle in downtown Barrie.

The defendants challenged the lawfulness of the police conduct, alleging violations of their Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded that Charter violations occurred.

The court found that the passengers (Hamidu and Farah) were arbitrarily detained without being advised of their right to counsel, and that evidence obtained from this unlawful detention should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The driver (Husen) was subject to a brief detention in furtherance of a valid Highway Traffic Act investigation, and the firearm evidence was admitted against him.

The charges against Hamidu and Farah were dismissed; Husen faced trial on firearm-related charges.

The accused, Ryan Reeves, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (cocaine and statements) obtained during an alleged unlawful detention and search by police.

The court found that the police officer unlawfully detained and searched the accused and his vehicle without legal authority, violating his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The officer's testimony was found to be unreliable and inconsistent.

Applying the Grant tripartite test for exclusion of evidence, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct and its impact on the accused's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of the evidence.

The accused was charged with robbery and breach of recognizance.

Counsel consented to severing the counts, with robbery proceeding before a jury.

The court ordered the selection of two alternate jurors under s. 631(2.1) of the Criminal Code, granting Crown and defence 14 peremptory challenges each.

A race-based challenge for cause was permitted under s. 638(1)(b) due to the accused being Black, and rotating triers were ordered under s. 640(2).

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on tertiary grounds for attempting to possess and import a firearm.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the tendering of a new surety (applicant's brother) and electronic monitoring.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed changes did not constitute a material change relevant to the original reasons for detention, which focused on the strength and seriousness of the case and the need to maintain public faith in the administration of justice.

The accused, Kamorey Mitchell, was charged with assault and aggravated assault following an altercation in a pub where the victim, Mr. Jason John, sustained significant facial injuries.

A third charge of uttering threats was dismissed by Crown counsel.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the assailant.

The court critically assessed the reliability of witness identification evidence from both the victim and a security guard, considering factors such as observation conditions, emotional state, time elapsed, and intervening factors that could taint identification.

The victim's identification was deemed unreliable due to chaotic circumstances, a vague initial description, a significant time gap, and inconsistent accounts of how information about the accused was obtained.

The security guard's identification, made nearly two years post-incident at trial, also raised reliability concerns.

The defense evidence, including the accused's denial and a friend's testimony, further contributed to reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the identity of the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all remaining charges.