Constantinos Stratos

Sentencing following jury verdicts convicting the accused of robbery and aggravated assault arising from a plaza confrontation in which he stole the complainant's necklace and later slashed the complainant's face with a knife.

The court held the accused could not be sentenced for the killing because the jury had acquitted on manslaughter on a lawful self-defence theory, but found the knife slashing was an unprovoked and wildly dangerous act demanding denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed the functional equivalent of a 4-year penitentiary sentence, then credited pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1 together with additional credit for lengthy lockdown conditions.

The resulting sentence was 6 months for robbery and 21 months concurrent for aggravated assault, followed by 3 years' probation, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Following a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm, the court sentenced the accused after receiving a section 21 Mental Health Act assessment.

The court treated deterrence and denunciation as primary given a serious group assault causing significant physical and emotional harm to a good Samaritan, but weighed substantial mitigating factors including childhood trauma, mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder, guilty plea, and rehabilitation prospects.

Applying sentencing principles under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and conditional sentence jurisprudence, the court held a structured community-based sanction could still meet denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed was 18 months conditional with staged restrictions, counselling and no-contact terms, followed by three years' probation, plus a DNA order.

The accused was tried for robbery, aggravated assault, and weapons offences following a violent attack on a man who had arranged to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old girl.

The victim was stabbed and robbed in his car.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's relationship with the girl and his presence near the scene.

The trial judge rejected the exculpatory evidence of the accused and the girl due to significant credibility concerns.

However, due to inconsistencies in the victim's evidence regarding how the assailant entered the vehicle, the court found the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault and weapons offences, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total time from charges to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 37.5 months.

The court deducted periods of delay caused by the applicant's change of counsel and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing the net delay to 26.5 months, below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the Crown took reasonable steps to mitigate delay and concluded the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter at a house party where both parties consumed significant amounts of alcohol.

The complainant had almost no memory of the events and awoke the next day suspecting she had been sexually assaulted.

The accused testified that the sexual encounter was consensual.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility and considered whether the complainant had the capacity to consent and whether she subjectively consented.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent or that she did not consent, as there were reasonable inferences available other than guilt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender, a 20-year-old with a criminal record, was found guilty of multiple firearm offences after police seized a loaded revolver from his vehicle.

He attempted to flee from police during the arrest.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of possessing a loaded firearm in public and his prior record against his youth and difficult upbringing.

The court imposed a total sentence of 51 months, reduced to 25 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused school bus driver was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual touching of a young person by a person in a position of trust or authority, and sexual interference arising from allegations that he repeatedly touched the complainant's buttocks as she exited the bus during grade six.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the presumption of innocence, the court held that the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The court identified frailties in the complainant's evidence, including lack of corroboration, delayed disclosure, surrounding disclosure circumstances, reduced opportunity after a route change, and aspects of her conduct toward the accused.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.