Christopher Assie

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping after playing a minimal role in the confinement of an international student for ransom.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's minimal participation, her status as a first offender, her history of trauma, and her diagnoses including Borderline Personality Disorder.

Emphasizing proportionality and rehabilitation, the court imposed a 22-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and overcoming resistance after orchestrating a sophisticated plot to abduct a foreign university student for ransom.

The victim was taken from his home, drugged, bound, and held captive for 13 days before being rescued by police.

The court sentenced the offender, who acted as the mastermind, to 20 years imprisonment for kidnapping and a concurrent 3 years for overcoming resistance, noting the extreme gravity of the offence and the paramount need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court declined to impose consecutive sentences based on the totality principle and declined to restrict parole eligibility.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to wound following an armed robbery of a cellular wireless store where the owner was shot in the neck.

The accused pleaded guilty to several related charges but contested the intent required for the remaining two charges, claiming the handgun discharged accidentally.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible but found reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, resulting in an acquittal for attempted murder.

However, the court found the accused guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, concluding that intentionally firing a loaded handgun at the victim's upper body from close range proved the requisite intent.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, applied for release on bail.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and a confession made to the applicant's former common-law spouse.

The court found that the applicant met his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under s. 515 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was released on a recognizance with two sureties pledging significant equity, strict house arrest conditions, and GPS electronic monitoring.

The accused was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, assault with a weapon, and uttering a death threat after she and her son attacked their neighbour and police officers.

The Crown subsequently applied for an assessment to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR).

Based on a psychiatric report, the court found that the accused suffered from a psychotic disorder, likely schizophrenia, and experienced severe delusions at the time of the offences.

The court concluded that her mental illness rendered her incapable of knowing her actions were morally wrong.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on all counts and the matter was referred to the Review Board.

The accused and her son threatened their neighbour with death and threw a knife at her.

When police arrived to arrest them, a chaotic altercation ensued at the front door of their home, during which the accused struck two officers with a pot, and her son was fatally shot after stabbing an officer.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, uttering a death threat, and three counts of assault with a weapon.

The court rejected the accused's defence that the murder plot was merely a ruse to attract police attention, and found that the police were acting within their lawful authority when they attempted to arrest her son due to imminent safety concerns.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking 4.95 grams of MDMA after selling it to an undercover officer via a Craigslist ad.

The Crown sought a six-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court found that the mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and strong rehabilitative prospects, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, along with a weapons prohibition and forfeiture of the seized money.

During a trial for multiple counts of kidnapping, robbery, and firearm offences related to cargo thefts, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across counts to prove identity.

The offences were alleged to have been committed by a rotating group of individuals.

The court applied the test from Perrier, finding that the offences were strikingly similar and that there was 'some evidence' linking each accused to the specific offences with which they were charged, primarily through cell phone tower data showing symmetry of movement.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect and ruled the similar fact evidence admissible across counts.

During a complex criminal trial involving multiple kidnappings and robberies, the Crown sought to introduce PowerPoint presentations as demonstrative aids to summarize voluminous cell phone records and plot cell tower locations.

The defence objected, arguing the presentations were misleading and distorted the evidence.

The court initially excluded the proposed presentations, finding they were confusing, assumed facts in dispute, and acted as a roadmap for the Crown's case.

However, the court subsequently admitted revised presentations that focused on individual phones, accurately distilled the records without assuming disputed facts, and were accompanied by cautionary instructions to the jury.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter motions seeking to exclude evidence from two separate police interactions.

For a July 2009 traffic stop, the court found the stop was unlawful due to a lack of credible police evidence regarding the reason for the stop, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The evidence from that stop was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to serious state conduct involving a failure to take notes.

For an August 2009 interaction where police approached a parked vehicle in a high-crime area, the court found no detention occurred, as the accused was free to leave and voluntarily provided his identification.

Consequently, there were no s. 8 or s. 10(b) breaches, and the accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

During pre‑trial proceedings on a multi‑count indictment involving robbery, firearms, kidnapping, and related offences, the court conducted a voluntariness voir dire concerning a police statement made by one of the accused.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary because the accused allegedly did not receive a proper caution or right to counsel, and contended that breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter undermined the accused’s right to silence.

The Crown argued the statement was voluntary and that no inducements, oppression, or improper police conduct occurred.

The court held that the accused had been informed of the right to counsel, had consulted counsel, and understood the right to remain silent.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the confessions rule, the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was admissible.

The Crown sought to admit a roadside statement made by a vehicle passenger identifying himself to police during a traffic stop.

The defence argued the Crown had not proven the accused was the declarant and that the statement was involuntary because no caution was given.

The court held that for admissibility the Crown need only show “some evidence” that the accused was the declarant, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the evidence, identity was established and the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt because there were no inducements, oppression, or lack of operating mind.

The absence of a caution did not render the statement involuntary where the accused was not detained or suspected of an offence.

In a multi‑accused jury trial involving numerous serious offences including robbery, kidnapping, firearms offences, and conspiracy, the court determined several pre‑trial jury selection issues.

The Crown sought an order empanelling fourteen jurors and selecting two alternate jurors under s. 631 of the Criminal Code due to the expected length and complexity of the trial.

The court granted the application, finding additional jurors advisable to reduce the risk of mistrial if jurors were excused.

The court also permitted a race‑based challenge for cause under s. 638(1)(b) given that the accused were members of visible minority groups, and established appropriate challenge questions referencing potential bias.

Finally, the court ruled that rotating triers would be used and ordered the exclusion of other jurors from the courtroom during the challenge process in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

During a pre‑trial voir dire, the Crown sought to admit two statements made by one accused following separate arrests.

The defence challenged the voluntariness of the second statement given during a police interview after consultation with counsel.

The court reviewed the confession rule and assessed inducements, oppression, operating mind, and the overall interview context.

Although the accused was properly cautioned and treated appropriately before the interview, the officer’s aggressive tone, physical positioning, and comments undermining confidence in defence counsel raised concerns.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness and excluded the November 18, 2009 statement while admitting the earlier statement.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit a police statement made by one of the co-accused.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to police inducements, oppression, and trickery during the interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the police conduct was appropriate, the accused's will was not overborne, and no shocking trickery was used.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with six offences relating to three armed robberies committed at bus stops in Brampton and Mississauga within a one-hour period.

The robber used an imitation handgun to steal cellphones and bus tickets, fleeing in a van.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification, similar fact evidence, DNA found on a baseball cap in the getaway van, and the accused's subsequent sale of the stolen cellphones.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence, finding the robberies strikingly similar.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unworthy of belief and found that the cumulative evidence proved his identity as the robber beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of all charges.