Cidalia C. G. Faria

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The court found a breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to a 10-minute delay after arrest, but declined to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found the accused guilty of both offences, concluding that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that he intentionally refused to provide a suitable breath sample without a valid medical excuse.

The accused pleaded guilty to intimate partner violence offences but failed to appear for sentencing after travelling to China and not returning.

The Crown brought a motion to proceed with sentencing in absentia.

The court found it had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under s. 669.2(1) of the Criminal Code because the original plea judge was unavailable.

The court also granted the motion to proceed in absentia under s. 475(1), finding that the accused had deliberately absconded, there was sufficient information to determine a fit sentence, and it was in the interests of justice to proceed given the seriousness of the offences and the delay.

The offender was sentenced for sexual assault, assault, and multiple breaches of court orders against his intimate partner.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's relentless pursuit of the victim and flagrant disregard for court orders, including calling the victim 43 times from jail during the trial.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3.5 years, reduced by 6 months due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including extensive triple-bunking and lockdowns, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years minus enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused, charged with firearm offences, brought an application mid-trial for a mistrial or, alternatively, for an order under s. 555 of the Criminal Code permitting re-election to Superior Court and converting the proceeding into a preliminary hearing.

The court rejected the mistrial request, holding that the failure of prior counsel to seek unredacted body worn camera footage did not establish an irregularity that created a real danger that trial fairness had been compromised.

However, the court found that continuing the trial in the Ontario Court of Justice would be lengthy, cumbersome, and inefficient because new disclosure motions, possible recall of numerous Crown witnesses, reconsideration of agreed facts, and further Charter litigation would be required.

In the interests of justice, and given the accused's significant liberty interests and the need to preserve fairness and the appearance of fairness, the court exercised its discretion under s. 555, declined to adjudicate, permitted re-election, and converted the matter into a preliminary hearing.

Following a lengthy criminal trial arising from a tumultuous intimate relationship, the court was left to decide one assault count and one sexual assault count, along with conceded breaches of release conditions.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard and the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's core narrative despite confusion on peripheral details and repeated attempts to end the prosecution.

The court found those recantation efforts reflected minimization, self-blame, and the dynamics of the relationship rather than fabrication.

The accused's denials were rejected as neither credible nor reliable.

Findings of guilt were entered on the assault, sexual assault, and three fail to comply counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to voyeurism, distribution of intimate images, and breach of probation after recording and sharing videos of the victim engaging in sexual activity.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted an 18-month conditional sentence but disputed whether a SOIRA order should issue.

The court imposed the conditional sentence, finding it met the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court declined to make a SOIRA order, concluding that the offender posed a low risk to re-offend and that the impact of a 20-year registration order would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The parties made a joint application under s. 83.1 of the Provincial Offences Act for the trial to proceed by electronic method.

The self-represented accused, facing serious securities fraud charges, had relocated to the United Kingdom and sought to attend remotely to avoid financial strain and continue working.

The court denied the application, finding that the interests of justice and the requirements for a fair trial necessitated an in-person hearing due to the complexity of the charges, the volume of documentary evidence, and the need to assist the self-represented accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and making child sexual abuse material arising from repeated penetrative assaults of a very young child over more than a year while acting as a trusted caregiver and family friend.

Applying the sentencing principles in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the recalibrated approach in Friesen, the court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, emphasizing the child’s age, repeated penetrative abuse, breach of trust, planning, and the enduring harm associated with image creation.

The court found only limited mitigation in the late guilty plea, lack of record, expressions of remorse, and collateral financial impact on the offender’s family.

A penitentiary sentence of 10 years was imposed, together with SOIRA, DNA, forfeiture, no-contact, and s. 161 orders.

The accused was tried for assault causing bodily harm after a surveillance video showed a larger male running from behind and knocking the complainant to the ground in a courtyard, causing head and facial injuries.

The court applied the video identification analysis from Nikolovski and compared the incident footage with arrest and booking footage, including clothing, build, hairline, facial hair, and a distinctive water jug.

The court rejected the defence submission that the video was too short or unclear and found the complainant had clearly been intentionally knocked down rather than accidentally struck.

The Crown proved identity, intent, and bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found guilty.

The 19-year-old offender pled guilty to possessing a loaded firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and failing to comply with a release order.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of carrying a loaded handgun in public and showing it to young girls, alongside mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, and the impact of anti-Black racism and trauma as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to 3 years in custody minus enhanced pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused was arrested for possession of a weapon and obstruct justice.

While detained, he made an unsolicited utterance about stabbing someone in the park.

The investigating officer, aware of a recent stabbing in that park, proceeded to ask the accused questions about the stabbing without re-advising him of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The court found that the accused's jeopardy had changed, triggering a duty to re-advise him of his rights, which the officer failed to do, resulting in a s. 10(b) breach.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the utterance was admissible, as the breach was on the lower end of seriousness, had minimal impact, and society's interest favoured adjudication on the merits.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code after a police pursuit involving multiple red-light violations, roadway departures, and collisions with police vehicles.

The sentencing issue was whether denunciation and deterrence required a conditional sentence, or whether a conditional discharge remained fit in light of individualized circumstances.

The court weighed significant aggravating features of the driving against mitigating factors including early guilty plea, remorse, absence of record, rehabilitation efforts, and social-context evidence including anti-Black racism impacts.

The court also considered collateral consequences relating to employability and immigration inadmissibility risk, applying parity and proportionality principles.

A conditional discharge with probation and a driving prohibition was imposed.

The court sentenced an accused who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed through a workplace breach of trust involving 21 fraudulent cheques totaling $50,308.98.

Applying proportionality, parity, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court treated repeated transactions, prior similar record, and business harm as aggravating, while crediting an early guilty plea, remorse, family support, employment, and sustained addiction recovery efforts.

The court found some unfairness in the charging timeline but held that post-plea fraudulent conduct still required a meaningful sanction.

A six-month conditional sentence was imposed to balance denunciation and deterrence with demonstrated rehabilitation.

Following trial convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from a road-rage confrontation, the court determined sentence.

The court held denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing principles but found a jail sentence was not required on these facts.

Weighing aggravating factors including leaving the scene and a false firearm report against significant mitigating factors, including first-offender status and strong rehabilitative history, the court concluded a conditional sentence remained proportionate.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles and authorities on parity and conditional sentence denunciatory effect, the court imposed a substantial community-based sanction with house arrest conditions.

The offender received an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 2 years’ probation, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The offender, a 21-year-old student Early Childcare Assistant, was found guilty of assaulting a 17-month-old child in her care by pulling a chair out from under the child, causing a cut lip that required stitches.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant background of trauma, and strong rehabilitative efforts.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, finding it in the offender's best interest and not contrary to the public interest.

The Crown applied to admit an utterance made by the accused to police during his arrest for an unrelated weapons offence, in which he admitted to stabbing someone days prior.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary because the accused was experiencing a mental health crisis, lacked an operating mind, and was not cautioned.

The court found that while the accused displayed signs of a mental health condition, he possessed the requisite cognitive ability to understand he was speaking to police and that his statements could be used against him.

The court also found the accused had been cautioned multiple times.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was tried on charges of uttering threats, assault, and disobeying a court order arising from an altercation with a university security guard.

The court dismissed the disobey court order count after the Crown called no evidence that a peace bond had been signed or remained in force.

Applying the Nikolovski framework, the court relied on high-quality video evidence and the complainant's unchallenged testimony to find identity proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court held that the accused's words, gun gesture, and subsequent statements about returning to shoot the complainant constituted threats, and that the intentional contact to the complainant's nose amounted to assault.

Guilty findings were entered on the threats and assault counts.

Sentencing of a 52-year-old repeat offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner while on probation prohibiting contact with her, and to uttering death threats against a fellow inmate while in pre-trial custody.

The prolonged and degrading attack involved dragging the victim by her hair and stomping on her head, causing injuries requiring stitches and leaving permanent scarring.

The court weighed extensive aggravating factors including intimate partner violence, breach of multiple probation orders, a 125-conviction criminal record spanning 36 years, and the severity of the assault against mitigating factors of guilty pleas, rehabilitative programming in custody, and harsh conditions of incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre including frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking.

The accused was tried on multiple charges arising from an LCBO theft, a struggle with two loss prevention officers, and a bottle thrown during flight that caused a complainant to suffer fractures, a seizure, and an epidural hematoma.

The court held that the injury evidence proved the bodily harm met the statutory definition of aggravated assault because the brain bleed endangered life.

However, the threatening words evidence was too unclear to prove a threat beyond a reasonable doubt, and the recognition identification evidence was inadequately developed and unreliable in light of the fleeting, stressful observation.

Because identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault and failing to comply with a release order after a confrontation with a maintenance worker in a parking garage.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, found the CCTV footage corroborated that the accused was the aggressor, rejected the claim of a consensual fight, and held that self-defence was disproved beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

Applying W.(D.), the court rejected the accused's account on the assault count, but found his evidence raised a reasonable doubt on whether he subjectively knew or recklessly disregarded that his presence breached the boundary condition of his release.

The accused was convicted of assault and acquitted of failing to comply with the release order.