Craig Zeeh

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms after storing handguns for a childhood friend who was part of a broader cross-border trafficking scheme.

The accused's involvement was peripheral, driven by his drug addiction, and he made significant strides in rehabilitation over three years on bail.

Although the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, the court found a sentence of 15-18 months appropriate due to mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The offender was convicted after trial of 24 weapons-related offences including possession of two loaded unlawful handguns, a loaded unlawful rifle, nine prohibited devices, and approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition for the purpose of transfer, as well as eight breaches of s. 109 prohibition orders.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender with prior penitentiary terms including an equivalent 11-year sentence in 2018 for firearm trafficking, resisted the search warrant execution by initiating a lengthy armed standoff requiring deployment of the Emergency Task Force.

The court identified the new sentencing range for a repeat s. 95 offender under the post-2023 regime as 10–14 years.

A global notional sentence of 12 years was imposed, reduced by one year of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, and a further 2.8 years of Summers credit (1.5:1 for 685 days), yielding 8.2 years (2,993 days) remaining to serve.

A lifetime s. 109 prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault of his newborn child after the child presented with subdural and retinal hemorrhages.

The Crown relied on expert medical evidence concluding the injuries were highly concerning for inflicted injury, based partly on hearsay accounts of the defendant forcefully rocking the child.

The court found the factual foundation for the expert's opinion on the mechanism of injury was not proven at trial and noted the expert was not provided the defendant's video statement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to the defendant's exculpatory police statement, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent for assault.

The defendant was acquitted.

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 faced 25 firearm-related possession charges arising from the execution of a search warrant at his condominium after a lengthy police standoff.

He challenged the warrant under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter, arguing that the affiant was misleading and that the information to obtain was insufficient, but the court held that the vehicle-description errors were innocent, excised them, and found the unredacted ITO still established reasonable grounds.

At trial, the accused admitted possession of the firearms, prohibited devices, and ammunition, but asserted duress based on threats from an armed creditor who allegedly used his apartment for storage.

The court held the defence lacked an air of reality because safe avenues of escape existed, including paying the debt or going to police, and alternatively found the Crown disproved duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

Convictions were entered on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of cocaine, oxycodone and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of house arrest bail after resuming trafficking shortly after release.

The court held that Gladue principles were not engaged because Indigenous ancestry was not established on the record, though the accused's background of trauma, addiction and economic disadvantage remained relevant mitigating circumstances.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for mid-level trafficking in hard drugs, and treating the continuation of trafficking while on bail as a serious aggravating factor, the court found that a conditional sentence was neither available nor fit.

A global penitentiary sentence of three years was reduced for harsh remand conditions, Summers credit, and restrictive bail credit, resulting in a final sentence of two years.

The decision addresses an application by Deren Akyeam-Pong to exclude evidence seized during a search of a Toronto hotel room, arguing that the search warrants were issued without sufficient grounds and that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached.

The court reviews the adequacy of the Information to Obtain (ITO), the role of confidential informant privilege, and the sufficiency of judicial summaries of redacted material.

The court finds that the ITO, as supplemented by a judicial summary, provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants.

The application is dismissed.

The court considered whether Devret Clarke, who shot and killed Gars-Ara Kourjakian, was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

The evidence established that Clarke suffered from schizophrenia and was actively psychotic at the time of the offence.

The main issue was whether his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was morally wrong.

After reviewing the evidence, including psychiatric opinions and Clarke’s own testimony, the court found that Clarke’s delusions led him to believe his actions were justified both by his own moral code and by societal norms, if society understood his experiences.

The court concluded that Clarke was NCR.

This decision addresses the validity of search warrants issued under s. 8 of the Charter and the lawfulness of an arrest under s. 9 of the Charter.

The court conducted a Garofoli hearing to assess whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on information from a confidential source (CS) to believe that the accused, Mr. Scott, possessed a firearm.

The court applied the "three Cs" test (compelling, credible, corroborated) for informant reliability and found that despite limited corroboration, the CS’s information was sufficiently credible and compelling to justify the warrants and the subsequent arrest.

The offenders, a mother and father, were convicted of multiple counts of severe physical and sexual abuse, including incest, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement, committed against four of their children over nearly two decades.

The court applied the principles from Friesen, emphasizing the profound harm caused by sexual violence against children and the egregious breach of trust.

After applying the totality principle to the numerous consecutive sentences, the mother was sentenced to a global term of 17 years and 8 months, and the father to a global term of 21 years.

The accused, Deren Kenneth Akyeam-Pong, was found guilty on multiple charges following a trial, including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and various firearm-related offences, along with breaches of probation and release orders.

The court determined guilt based on circumstantial evidence, applying principles of constructive and joint possession, and found the defence's alternative inferences to be unreasonable speculation.

The appellant, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed on three grounds: the trial judge's failure to provide a standalone instruction on collusion, the admission of in-dock identification evidence from an eyewitness who previously failed to identify him, and the refusal to grant a mistrial following prejudicial remarks by the Crown in closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's general cautions on witness credibility were sufficient to address collusion concerns, the discretionary decision to admit in-dock identification evidence was not erroneous given the strong corrective instructions provided, and the Crown's improper remarks did not warrant a mistrial as they were adequately cured by the trial judge's clear instructions to the jury.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences, sought to exclude firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 8 rights due to an unlawful search.

The court found that while the general warrant for a cellphone was valid, the police search of the vehicle exceeded its scope, constituting a Charter breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined the breach was serious, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was significant (especially given his status as a victim in the underlying murder investigation), and despite society's interest in adjudication on the merits of serious firearm charges, the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude the evidence was granted.

The applicant, Ali Bhatti, charged with firearms offences, sought to exclude firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a s. 8 Charter breach due to an unreasonable search.

The court found that while the general warrant used to seize his cellphone was properly issued and based on reasonable grounds, the police exceeded its scope by searching a hidden compartment in his vehicle's door frame.

This search was deemed unreasonable, infringing the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

The determination on the s. 24(2) remedy (exclusion of evidence) was deferred for further written submissions.

The accused, Isiaha Gordon-Brown, pleaded guilty to five counts including trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl, possession of a prohibited firearm device, possession of a loaded restricted handgun, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He proceeded to a judge-alone trial on one count of drug trafficking in association with a criminal organization (the "Jungle Gang").

The court found him guilty on the criminal organization count based on circumstantial evidence demonstrating his association with the gang and his senior role in drug trafficking within their territory.

The court then proceeded to sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature of the drugs and firearms, the commercial scale of trafficking, and the accused's senior position, balanced against strong mitigating factors including his lack of prior record, early guilty plea, and significant rehabilitative efforts in custody.

A total sentence of 15 years was imposed, reduced to 11 years by the totality principle, and further reduced by 31 months for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 8 years and 5 months.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after fleeing police and hiding two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl in a residential backyard.

The court considered the accused's serious criminal record, including prior convictions for armed robbery and murder, and the significant danger posed to the public.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years and 2 months after crediting pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The applicant, one of three co-accused charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application to exclude a video recovered from his cellphone.

The video depicted the applicant holding a firearm with a caption containing rap lyrics referencing a shot to the head, which mirrored the victim's cause of death.

The applicant argued the video was irrelevant and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court dismissed the application, finding the video was sufficiently proximate in time to the murder and admissible as a party admission, subject to limiting instructions to the jury regarding out-of-court statements and unconscious racial bias.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude cellphone evidence seized during a traffic stop, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a delay in filing a Report to Justice.

The court found that while the traffic stop was legitimate, the seizure of the cellphones by the London police officer was unlawful as he lacked independent reasonable grounds, acting solely on direction from another officer.

However, the court determined that the Charter breach was not serious, the impact on the accused was minimal, and the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute by admitting the evidence, especially given the seriousness of the murder charge and the subsequent judicial authorization for the search.

The Crown sought to admit ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Sangita Sharma, in a murder trial against three defendants.

The statements concerned Ms. Sharma's business dealings and disputes with an alleged orchestrator of her contract killing, Mian Afzalaqif.

The court ruled on the admissibility of these statements under traditional hearsay exceptions (state of mind, statement of intention) and the principled approach to hearsay (necessity and threshold reliability).

The court found the statements admissible, deeming them relevant to motive and identity, and satisfying the reliability criteria despite defence concerns regarding the witness's credibility.

The Crown applied to admit non-expert recognition evidence from a high school principal identifying the respondent in a surveillance video recorded days before a first-degree murder.

The respondent objected, arguing the video quality was poor and the police identification procedure was suggestive.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled the evidence admissible, finding that the principal's extensive prior familiarity with the respondent provided a strong foundation for the identification, which outweighed the procedural flaws and put the jury in a better position to assess the evidence.