Christopher K. Assié

Richard Samuels and Tafari Minott pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the shooting death of Osman Bangura.

The Crown sought eight-year sentences, while defence counsel requested six years.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the use and disposal of illegal firearms and Samuels' youth record, and mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, self-defence concerns (though disproportionate force was used), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a six-year sentence on both offenders, with credit for time served, resulting in remaining sentences of approximately 2 years 9.5 months for Samuels and 3 years 8.5 months for Minott.

Both were also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

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.

Jevaughn Myers pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The victim, an international student, was kidnapped for ransom and held for 13 days.

The Crown sought 16 years, while the defence proposed 8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors (victim impact, Myers' central role) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, mental health, family support, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions).

Applying sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, comprising 9 years for kidnapping and 1 year consecutive for administering a substance, after accounting for pre-sentence custody.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

Kristopher Matthews pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 23-28 years and a s. 743.6 order for delayed parole eligibility.

Defence sought 10-13 years global and opposed the s. 743.6 order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years (13 years for kidnapping, 2 years consecutive for administering the drug), giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied the s. 743.6 order, finding that the danger presented by the offender did not warrant such an exceptional measure.

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.

Sentencing following a jury trial in which one offender was convicted of manslaughter arising from a fatal street shooting and the other was convicted of accessory after the fact to manslaughter.

The court applied the post-jury-verdict sentencing framework to find that the shooter did not intend to kill, acted in response to a threat or use of force, but used unreasonable excessive force by intentionally firing a loaded handgun.

In fixing sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for urban gun violence, prior weapons prohibitions, drug trafficking activity, post-offence flight, and the devastating victim impact, while also giving weight to youth, remorse, support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The principal offender received 9 years less 49 months' credit, and the accessory received 2 years less 19.5 months' credit, together with DNA orders and weapons prohibitions.

M.M. was sentenced for possession and making child pornography involving a 15-year-old foster cousin, M.G., with whom he was in a position of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the position of trust and luring behaviour (despite an acquittal on a luring charge, which was considered as character evidence).

Mitigating factors included M.M. being a first offender, low risk of reoffending, unsolicited receipt of images, no distribution, and genuine remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences, referencing R. v. Friesen, but ultimately imposed a conditional sentence due to the specific, less sinister nature of the pornography and the offender's personal circumstances.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, sought a review of his detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail at first instance.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the bail judge's decision to deny bail was "clearly unwarranted" based on the primary and tertiary grounds.

They concluded that the applicant's proposed release plan, especially a new, more robust one presented on appeal, sufficiently addressed concerns about his attendance in court and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice, despite the gravity of the charge and the arguable strength of the Crown's circumstantial case.

The court granted bail.

The dissenting judge argued for deference to the bail judge's factual findings and found the original decision reasonable.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young relative.

He appealed on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial counsel failed to properly advise him about his right to testify and effectively prevented him from doing so.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel failed to provide meaningful advice on the advantages and disadvantages of testifying.

Concluding that the appellant likely would have testified if properly advised and that his testimony could have reasonably affected the verdict, the Court found a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought an order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code directing a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a decision denying him bail pending trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

The bail judge had denied release primarily on the tertiary ground, finding the Crown's case strong based on video and eyewitness evidence.

The motion judge found it arguable that the bail judge committed a material error of law or fact in assessing the strength of the Crown's case without making specific findings of fact or identifying a specific basis for party liability.

The application was granted, and a review by a panel was ordered.

Muse Abdirahim was sentenced for seven offences arising from two armed robberies committed in 2010.

He pleaded guilty to six charges and was found guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 6 years, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and significant rehabilitation efforts over the nine years between the offences and sentencing.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the mandatory minimum sentences for firearm use, and the severe impact on the victim, balanced against the offender's strong prospects for rehabilitation and the lengthy delay.

A global sentence of 8 years incarceration was imposed, to be served consecutively to a prior four-year sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery.

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 accused, Carlos Silva, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants and an arrest, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown brought a cross-application to admit certain police notes and reports as hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the accused's application to exclude evidence, finding the search warrants and arrest lawful, and that no Charter rights were violated.

The court partially granted the Crown's application, admitting property reports and an exhibit list, but excluding an officer's notes due to reliability concerns stemming from the officer's fentanyl overdose death shortly after the seizure.

The accused, Muse Abdirahim, brought a severance application under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code for three sets of armed robbery charges.

The Crown resisted, intending to use similar fact evidence.

The court granted severance in part, ordering a separate trial for charges related to the second incident (Mac's Milk) due to the objective reasonableness of the accused's intention not to testify and the tenuous nature of the Crown's similar fact evidence for that incident.

However, severance was denied for the first (Stay Inn) and third (Cell Phone store) incidents, as DNA evidence strongly linked them, the similar fact application was deemed viable, and concerns regarding trial efficiency, risk of inconsistent verdicts, and victim inconvenience outweighed the prejudice to the accused.

The Member was found to have committed professional misconduct by falsifying records, submitting a false account, and failing to meet record-keeping standards.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, while the Member proposed a 3-6 month suspension.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a 6-month suspension, and the completion of remedial courses in ethics and record-keeping.

The Committee also ordered the Member to pay $120,000 in costs to the College, noting that the Member's conduct during the hearing unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

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 charged with failing to comply with a screening device demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused deliberately failed to provide a suitable breath sample during an approved screening device test.

The defence argued the failure was not wilful and alternatively that the accused had a reasonable excuse, claiming he was suffering from a cold or flu and was physically unable to provide a sample.

The court found that the accused deliberately failed to follow simple instructions to blow into the device, repeatedly sucking air instead, and rejected the accused's credibility regarding his claimed illness based on video evidence showing normal breathing and speech capacity.

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.

N.J. pleaded guilty to six counts, including procuring (s.212(1)(h)) involving four teenage complainants and two counts of assault.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the number and nature of crimes, the vulnerability of the young women, and the predatory character of the offender's actions as a pimp.

Mitigating factors included N.J. being a first-offender, his guilty pleas, and restrictive bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court imposed an effective total sentence of three years' incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order, after crediting 502 days for presentence custody and house arrest.

The defendant was charged with four offences arising from driving a red Mustang at 218 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401 while fleeing from individuals in a green Audi: performing a stunt, racing, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor readily available.

The defendant claimed the defence of necessity, asserting he feared the occupants of the Audi would shoot him and his cousin.

The court found all elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt but rejected the necessity defence on a modified objective standard, finding reasonable legal alternatives were available.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to preclude dual convictions for performing a stunt and racing, staying the racing charge.

The defendant was convicted of performing a stunt, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor.