Craig A. Brannagan

Ricardo Charleston pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background (including sexual abuse, family dynamics, education, employment, and extensive criminal record related to addiction and mental health), and the severe impact on the victim.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 5 years, arguing for time served due to pre-sentence custody and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 7 years (84 months), crediting 70 months for pre-sentence custody and mitigating factors, resulting in a further 14 months to serve.

A concurrent 3-month sentence was imposed for the probation breach.

K.S., a young person, was sentenced after being found guilty of common assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assisting Jacob A. to escape.

She was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The court considered whether the gateway to custody was open and if further custody was warranted, given her 242 days in secure detention.

Based on psychological and presentence reports indicating low risk of reoffending and positive trajectory, the court imposed a 3-year probation order with specific conditions, a 2-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, declining further incarceration.

A young person, K.S., was charged with multiple offences including common assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assisting Jacob A. to escape, and second-degree murder, all stemming from a violent incident at a party.

The court found K.S. guilty of common assault on two individuals (A.D. and F.K.), aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on M.O., and assisting Jacob A. to escape.

However, K.S. was acquitted of second-degree murder due to reasonable doubt regarding her direct participation and intent in the fatal stabbing of F.N. The judgment details K.S.'s role as an accomplice to Jacob's rampage, balancing the Crown's theory of aiding and abetting against the defence's argument of protective behaviour.

A young person charged with second degree murder, accessory after the fact, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and three counts of assault simpliciter arising from stabbings at a party in Toronto on October 31, 2019, was the subject of a Crown application to permit two key eyewitnesses to testify via videoconference under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence opposed the application for two witnesses.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the witnesses' mere preference to testify remotely due to COVID-19 health concerns, without evidence of personal vulnerability or exceptional circumstances, was insufficient to justify departure from the default standard of in-person testimony in a serious criminal matter where credibility was central to the case.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable period of time contrary to section 11(b).

The accused was charged with impaired driving on May 8, 2019, and was scheduled for trial on October 3-4, 2019, resulting in approximately 17 months of delay.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court found that although the delay was concerning and disappointing, it did not constitute constitutionally intolerable delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

Randi Wasylyk was charged with unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Daniel Green discharged a firearm and then placed the weapon in Wasylyk's satchel shortly before their arrest.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and trial.

The central issues were whether Wasylyk knew about the firearm or was wilfully blind to its presence, and whether she intended to possess it to assist Green in evading police.

The court found the defence's evidence plausible and consistent, raising a reasonable doubt regarding Wasylyk's knowledge and intent to possess the firearm.

Consequently, Wasylyk was found not guilty on all counts.

B.Z. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the assault, non-consensual vaginal penetration, and the victim's emotional trauma, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior criminal record and educational background.

The court rejected the defense's submission for a lower sentence and the request to stay the forcible confinement conviction based on the Kienapple principle, finding the acts distinct.

A sentence of 42 months concurrent for both convictions was imposed, along with mandatory ancillary orders, but restitution was denied due to insufficient evidence of the precise amount.

Randi Wasylyk, charged with firearm offences, applied to exclude a firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 and 9, as the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful based on reasonable grounds.

However, the court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to delayed notification of arrest reasons and unreasonable delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that despite the seriousness of the Charter breaches, the reliable nature of the firearm evidence and society's strong interest in prosecuting firearm offences meant its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the firearm was deemed admissible.

The defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and threatening death following a knife attack in a restaurant, and assault on a police officer.

The trial judge had previously stayed all charges except assault with a weapon due to police brutality during arrest.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 90 days jail while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, finding that a nine-month conditional sentence was appropriate when accounting for the Charter breach involving excessive police force, pre-trial detention, and lengthy bail conditions.

The accused, a Niagara Regional Police officer, was charged with assaulting his wife, also a police officer, on November 25, 2013.

The complainant alleged the accused was the aggressor who chased her through the house and assaulted her.

The accused claimed the complainant was the aggressor.

The trial examined credibility and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Despite finding the accused's evidence unreliable due to his manipulative and jealous behavior, and despite concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.