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.

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.

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.

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, 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 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.

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.

The accused, Alexander Climent, was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault against Aaron Gauthier.

The court found a history of antagonism where Gauthier was consistently the aggressor.

Climent admitted to stabbing Gauthier but claimed self-defence.

Applying s. 34 of the Criminal Code, the court determined that Climent had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him and that his actions were for self-defence and reasonable given the circumstances, including Gauthier's larger size, aggressive history, and the fact that Climent was being choked.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Climent did not act in self-defence.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

This is a decision on committal to trial following a lengthy preliminary inquiry into Project Corral, an investigation by the Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force into alleged criminal organizations in northwest Toronto.

The Crown sought committal on 71 charges arising from evidence heard at the preliminary inquiry, including charges of trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, counselling, obstruction of justice, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzed voice identification evidence from intercepted communications, the meaning of coded language used by the accused, and the elements of possession, trafficking, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The court ordered most accused to stand trial on the majority of charges, with some discharges on specific counts.