Coulson Mills

Ephraim Woldehawariat was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved he intended to exercise control over the substance, specifically addressing the 'hot potato' defence.

The court found that the accused had the fentanyl in his hand for at least 20 seconds before attempting to hide it from police, leading to the reasonable inference that he formed the intention to control it.

The court rejected the 'hot potato' defence and found the accused guilty.

Dwight Dequilla was sentenced for multiple offences including attempted murder, assault (intimate partner violence), mischief, and numerous breaches of court orders.

The offences stemmed from a campaign of harassment and abuse against his former partner, Melanie Cruz, and culminated in the attempted murder of Neil Virtucio, whom Dequilla believed was having an affair with Ms. Cruz.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for intimate partner violence and witness intimidation, imposing a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh detention conditions.

This decision concerns the sentencing of an Indigenous offender, Evan Buswa, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including theft, break and enter, and breaches of court orders, primarily involving the theft of donation and tip boxes.

The court considered significant mitigating factors such as the offender's Indigenous heritage, chronic homelessness, mental health challenges (schizophrenia), and substance addiction, applying Gladue principles.

Despite the Crown seeking a one-year jail sentence, the court emphasized the disproportionate impact of incarceration on vulnerable Indigenous individuals and the systemic factors contributing to their over-representation in the criminal justice system.

The judge ultimately imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, highlighting that jails are not a solution for issues rooted in poverty, mental health, and addiction.

The accused, Per Polderman, was charged with assault following an altercation with the complainant, Mipha Koh, during a breakup.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her prior statements, her recollection of events, and her motivations.

The court found the complainant to be the aggressor, having damaged the accused's property and assaulted him.

The accused's actions, including using his forearm to create distance and pulling the complainant from his car, were found to be reasonable acts of self-defence and defence of property under Section 35 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was acquitted of the charge.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm after pushing the victim twice during an altercation in a shared residential home.

The accused admitted to using force but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while the first push may have been justified as self-defence, the second push was an act done in anger and not a reasonable act of self-defence.

The court determined that bodily harm was objectively foreseeable from the force used, and convicted the accused of assault causing bodily harm.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child, JB, is First Nations, was removed from parental care due to protection concerns, is in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), and should be placed in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The parents opposed, seeking access.

The court found JB to be a First Nations child and in need of protection due to hazardous home conditions, ongoing parental substance abuse (including carfentanil), and inability to meet the child's developmental and emotional needs.

Despite acknowledging parental poverty and mental health issues, the court determined that the Society had fulfilled its obligations and that extended society care for adoption, with no parental access, was in the child's best interests, particularly given the foster family's demonstrated commitment to preserving the child's Indigenous cultural identity.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order made in 2014 that provided for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule.

The applicant had unilaterally moved from Scarborough to Markham, enrolled the child in a new school, and removed the child from daycare without the respondent's consent.

The applicant sought to vary the parenting schedule to accommodate the move.

The court found that the applicant's self-help tactics breached the joint custody order and failed to respect its spirit and letter.

The court restored the status quo, ordering that the child reside primarily with the respondent and attend school in Scarborough, with the applicant having access three out of four weekends per month.

The accused held herself out as a registered nurse to administer Botox, dermal fillers, and chemical peels to several complainants.

The complainants suffered various injuries, including scarring, disfigurement, and allergic reactions.

The court found that the complainants' consent to the procedures was vitiated by the accused's fraudulent misrepresentation of her credentials.

The court held that the use of a syringe needle without valid consent constituted assault with a weapon.

The accused was found guilty of fraud, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.

In a sexual assault prosecution, the Crown sought to present its case through the complainant's earlier-recorded statements (911 calls and a police interview) because the complainant was absent from trial and unwilling to attend.

The court considered whether these hearsay statements could be admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, which requires both necessity and reliability.

While the court found the necessity criterion marginally satisfied based on reasonable diligent efforts to locate the complainant, it rejected the application on reliability grounds.

The court found that the circumstances surrounding the statements, combined with the absence of any opportunity for cross-examination, created identifiable dangers that were not sufficiently overcome by confirmatory evidence.

The court emphasized that the live issues of consent and use of force could be significantly affected by cross-examination, and that the evidence could not be deemed inherently trustworthy.