Christian Pearce

Brian O’Donnell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent after shooting the victim, Lacramioara Flanagan, with a sawed-off shotgun from behind at close range.

The offences were premeditated and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

The Court considered the offender’s psychiatric and cognitive disorders, his criminal history, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence imposed was 2859 days imprisonment before credit, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a no-contact order.

The court considered whether Hady Delgado was in constructive or joint possession of drugs and cash found in a bedroom he shared with his brother.

The evidence was circumstantial, and the court found that while there was a strong inference of knowledge, there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs belonged to Jersey Delgado and were in the room without Hady's knowledge.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Hady was in possession and acquitted him on all counts.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Ralph George for possession of two loaded firearms and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on two separate occasions.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, public firearm possession, drug quantities indicating mid-level trafficking, a prior criminal record, and fleeing from police.

Significant mitigating factors were also weighed, such as the offender's difficult upbringing marked by trauma, abuse, systemic discrimination, negative police experiences, and sexual assaults in foster care, as well as Charter breaches during his arrest, his efforts in programming while in custody, positive rehabilitative prospects, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 20 years, while the defence proposed 12-14 years.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, reduced to 10.5 years after credit for pre-sentence custody, finding that a higher sentence would be "crushing" and undermine rehabilitation.

Ilirjon Bajraktari was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day to avoid deportation.

The court sentenced the defendant to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, with strict house arrest and curfew, followed by one year of probation, along with ancillary orders (firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture).

The judge considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, family support, and pro-social efforts, and the potential impact on his immigration status, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate for rehabilitation while still achieving denunciation and deterrence.

The defendants brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (money and a handgun) obtained during a police interaction, alleging multiple Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and denial of the right to counsel.

The court found no arbitrary detention at the initial stages of the police interaction and determined that the subsequent search and seizure were lawful, based on reasonable grounds of Liquor License Act and Cannabis Control Act violations.

While minor breaches of the right to counsel (failure to "hold off" questioning post-arrest) and a failure to report seized items to a justice were identified, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the conduct, the minimal impact on the defendants' rights, and society's strong interest in the adjudication of serious charges on their merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance.

While on bail for other firearms offences, the accused posted a picture of a handgun on a web forum, leading to a police search of his residence.

During the search, he discarded a loaded handgun from an 11th-floor balcony.

The court considered the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, and the impact of systemic racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, leaving 430 days to serve.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, sought a stay of proceedings due to a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

While both the Crown and defence contributed to the delay through inaction, the court found the Crown bore a higher onus to ensure the case stayed on track, especially after preferring a direct indictment.

Despite the defence's failure to bring the application in a timely manner, the court attributed the greater portion of the delay to the Crown, finding the ceiling breached, and reluctantly stayed the proceedings.

The defendants, Victoria Manna-Silva and Ralph George, brought applications under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and a firearm) and for a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of their section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found that police lawfully entered the apartment under exigent circumstances (911 domestic violence call) and observed drugs in plain view.

However, the court found section 8 violations for police remaining in the apartment after Ms. Manna-Silva was removed and for minor unlawful searches by a supervising officer.

A section 10(b) violation was also found due to delay in facilitating Ms. Manna-Silva's access to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the breaches was low to moderate, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion given the independent discoverability of evidence and lack of self-incrimination, and society had a strong interest in adjudicating the serious drug and firearm charges on their merits.

Consequently, both the applications for exclusion of evidence and a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a fatal shooting outside a bar.

After a dispute, the offender handed a mask to an unidentified shooter who then shot the victim.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years and 3 months, arguing for mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including extensive lockdowns and lack of medical care.

The court found the appropriate sentence was 8 years, but reduced it by 6 months to 7.5 years to reflect the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with possessing and transferring firearms, and possessing proceeds of crime, following an undercover police operation.

The Crown alleged the accused was the supplier of firearms sold by a co-actor to an undercover officer.

The court admitted various pieces of evidence, including cross-count similar fact evidence, adoptive admissions, and hearsay statements under the co-actors' exception.

However, applying the standard for circumstantial evidence, the court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious, it supported other reasonable inferences, such as mere association or involvement in other criminality.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion alleging that the police violated their s. 8 Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant at their residence.

The police had a valid warrant for a single-family dwelling targeting another individual, but upon entry, discovered two separate residential units (main floor and basement).

The applicants resided in the basement unit.

The police proceeded to search the entire house, including the basement, where they found firearms and ammunition.

The court held that the search of the basement unit was reasonable and did not violate s. 8, given the target's access to common areas, his absence during the search, and the discovery of a handgun magazine in plain view in the basement.

The motion was dismissed.

Kadah Dematas was convicted of multiple charges related to a home invasion and shooting, including discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (violent nature, youth record, lack of employment), and mitigating factors (no prior adult record, young age, improved conduct in custody, genuine remorse, family support, lesser role in the shooting).

The court also addressed enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, including "Summers credits" and "Duncan credits" for harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Dematas's asthma.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with significant credit for time served, resulting in a balance of 1 year remaining.

The two accused were charged with multiple firearm and assault offences following a home invasion where the complainant was shot in the neck.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA, and gunshot residue, to identify the accused as two of the three perpetrators.

The court dismissed a lost evidence application regarding unseized video surveillance.

Ultimately, the court found one accused guilty as a party to the offences based on DNA and circumstantial evidence connecting him to the scene.

However, the court acquitted the other accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence raised a reasonable doubt about his presence during the shooting.

The accused, Kadah Dematas and Christopher Lucas, brought motions for directed verdicts on multiple charges, including attempted murder, discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, stemming from a home invasion and shooting.

The court granted directed verdicts of not guilty for attempted murder and possession of a firearm knowing it was obtained by crime, finding insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill or a reasonable prospect of conviction for the latter.

However, the court denied directed verdicts for discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, concluding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to infer guilt for these general and specific intent offences (excluding the specific intent to kill).

The court also found a common purpose among the intruders.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to introduce a video statement from witness Jason Cotterell, who did not testify, as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown argued the statement met the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found that while portions of the statement describing events after the robbery were sufficiently corroborated by video evidence and a recovered projectile to meet the threshold reliability test, the Crown failed to establish necessity.

The police did not make reasonable efforts to secure the witness's attendance, waiting two months before attempting service and failing to pursue available contact methods such as Instagram or the witness's known contacts.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

Jermaine Smith was tried without a jury on two counts of robbery, two counts of disguise with intent, and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance.

A statement given to police was ruled inadmissible.

The Crown relied on the doctrine of recent possession to identify Smith as one of the robbers, based on his girlfriend redeeming stolen lottery tickets given to her by Smith.

The court found Smith was in possession of the recently stolen tickets but deemed it unsafe to infer he was one of the robbers due to the easily transferable nature of the goods, lack of other corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies in witness descriptions.

Smith was found not guilty of the robbery and disguise charges but guilty of failing to comply with a recognizance, which he conceded.

The accused, Jermaine Smith, faced charges including robbery.

During his judge-alone trial, the Crown sought to admit a statement Smith gave to police.

The defence challenged its admissibility, arguing it was not voluntary due to an alleged inducement by Detective Stinson, who purportedly threatened to charge Smith's girlfriend and involve the Children's Aid Society if Smith did not confess.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness of the statement, primarily due to the police's failure to audio or video record a critical "pre-interview" with Smith, despite recording facilities being available.

Consequently, the statement was ruled inadmissible.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded that the ASD demand was lawful.

The sole issue was whether the accused had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide an adequate sample.

The accused did not outright refuse but failed to provide a suitable sample after multiple attempts.

The defence argued that language difficulties and the accused's request for an interpreter, which was difficult to hear and not understood by the officer, reasonably explained the confusion and failure to follow instructions.

The court found that the evidence disclosed a reasonable excuse due to language difficulties and dismissed the charge.

The three defendants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 for making fraudulent claims for statutory accident benefits after a motor vehicle accident in which they were not present.

All first-time offenders and immigrants from Haiti, two of whom are landed immigrants whose immigration status would be jeopardized by a sentence of six months or more.

The Crown sought a one-year jail sentence for each, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of less than six months.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including general deterrence and rehabilitation, and the mitigating factors of the offenders' difficult economic circumstances, lack of prior record, and their role as minor players in a scheme instigated by another individual.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of five months and 29 days of house arrest, followed by two years of probation, and 150 hours of community service for each defendant, with partial restitution of $1,000 from one defendant.

This sentence was chosen to avoid deportation and promote rehabilitation while still denouncing the conduct.

The accused were charged with fraud over $5,000 for making false claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown alleged they were not occupants of the vehicle.

The court found the accused's claims to be entirely dishonest and fraudulent, based on eyewitness testimony and inconsistencies in their statements and the driver's accident report.

The court concluded that the accused were not in the vehicle and that the Jevco Insurance Company was deprived of over $5,000 in each case.

All three accused were convicted of fraud over $5,000.