Cynthia Valarezo

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief against his former intimate partner.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the use of a knife, and the profound impact on the victim, against the mitigating factor of the offender having no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of four and a half years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for intimate partner violence and sexual offences.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial involving former intimate partners, the court assessed allegations of sexual assault, property damage, attempted murder, and assault causing bodily harm.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and largely unbelievable, and accepted the complainant's evidence on the January and April 2019 incidents, subject to minor peripheral reservations.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant, wilfully damaged her phone, and stabbed her in the breast causing bodily harm.

However, applying the specific-intent requirements for attempted murder and the stabbing factors drawn from the jurisprudence, the court held that the limited force of the single flesh wound left a reasonable doubt about an intent to kill.

The court also found no evidentiary foundation for a defence of advanced intoxication.

The accused was charged with robbery after stealing a vehicle at gunpoint from an innocent family in a mall parking lot.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, arguing he stole the vehicle to escape after being attacked during a drug deal and firing his own handgun.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed a threat of force was being used against him and acted for a defensive purpose, his response of robbing innocent bystanders at gunpoint was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's reckless role in creating the dangerous situation by bringing a loaded handgun to a drug deal weighed heavily against the reasonableness of his actions.

The accused was found guilty of robbery.

The defendant, Simitkumar Patel, was charged with child luring and child pornography offences following an undercover police operation.

He applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging that his Charter rights were violated during his arrest and subsequent detention.

The court found multiple serious Charter violations, including arbitrary detention, denial of the right to counsel, and a deceptive interrogation that subverted his right to silence.

Furthermore, the court held that the harsh conditions of his detention, which included a public strip search and the denial of vegetarian food for three days, caused him post-traumatic stress disorder and violated his section 7 rights.

To protect the integrity of the justice system from such egregious state misconduct, the court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, Kyle Francis, pleaded guilty to robbery and administering a noxious substance arising from two planned jewelry store robberies.

The Crown sought a 21-month custodial sentence and ancillary orders, including a lifetime weapons prohibition and a $1.5 million fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendant, self-represented with amicus curiae, sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the gravity, planning, and violence of the offenses, and the significant harm to victims.

While acknowledging mitigating factors like youth, lack of prior record, and progress in addressing mental health and substance abuse, the court found a term of detention necessary for denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a 21-month custodial sentence (less pre-sentence custody), 18 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year firearm prohibition, rejecting the lifetime prohibition and the fine in lieu of forfeiture due to lack of procedural foundation and proportionality concerns.

The accused drove a rented van down a busy sidewalk in Toronto, killing 10 people and injuring 16 others.

He admitted to the acts but raised a defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing that his Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court found that while ASD qualifies as a mental disorder under s. 16, the accused did not lack the capacity to rationally evaluate his actions.

He knew his actions were legally and morally wrong but chose to commit them to achieve notoriety.

The NCR defence failed, and the accused was found guilty of 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder.

The defence brought a motion for a sealing order and in camera proceedings during the testimony of their key expert witness, a US-based psychiatrist.

The expert issued an ultimatum that he would withdraw from the case unless his video recordings of the accused were sealed and shielded from public broadcast, citing concerns about copycat violence, notoriety, and stigmatization of the autism community.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that while the expert's concerns did not themselves justify a sealing order, his threat to withdraw would deprive the accused of his only defence, thereby creating a substantial risk to the administration of justice.

The court reluctantly granted the motion to preserve the accused's right to a fair trial, balancing it against the open court principle by implementing limited restrictions on public access to the video exhibits.

During a trial for multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder, the Crown brought an application for the disclosure of audio and video recordings made by defence psychiatric experts during their interviews with the accused and his family.

The accused had raised a defence of not criminally responsible under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the recordings were protected by litigation privilege, but that this privilege would be waived if the experts were called to testify or if the recordings were used by a witness to refresh their memory.

The court ordered that the recordings must be disclosed to the Crown immediately upon any of the experts being called to testify.

The defendant, Quinnton Drake, pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including robbery with a firearm and dangerous driving.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application.

The court found the defendant to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour, demonstrating a failure to restrain behaviour and a substantial indifference to foreseeable consequences.

Despite the defence arguing for a fixed-term sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, the court determined that an indeterminate sentence was required, as there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from the risk of future serious personal injury offences.

Ancillary orders included a mandatory DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defence applied for a publication ban on the accused's video-recorded statement to the police and a sealing order for information found on electronic devices seized during a search warrant execution.

The media opposed both orders.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the defence failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that necessitated a publication ban or sealing order.

The court emphasized the presumption of open court proceedings and the importance of freedom of the press.

Both applications were dismissed, with a temporary extension granted to allow for potential appeals.

Alek Minassian, charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder related to the Toronto van attack, brought a motion for disclosure of data from three password-protected electronic devices seized by the police.

The Crown argued it lacked possession or control over the encrypted data and could not disclose it without prior review due to public safety concerns, including potential child pornography and incel-related threats.

The court found the defence met the relevance test and that the Crown had possession and control of the data.

Balancing the accused's right to full answer and defence against public safety, the court ordered disclosure to defence counsel, subject to strict undertakings and conditions.

These conditions included counsel retaining custody, not providing raw data to Minassian, and a duty to report evidence of child pornography or future criminal acts by third parties to the police, with flexibility for anonymous reporting or seeking court directions.

The defendant, Ghenadie Carpov, was charged with sexual assault, administering a noxious substance to cause bodily harm, and administering a stupefying thing to commit an indictable offence, involving two complainants, L.M. and L.O. The court found the defendant guilty of two counts of sexual assault but not guilty of the charges related to administering a noxious substance.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding consent, finding that both complainants lacked the capacity to consent due to intoxication, which the defendant exploited.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect he was the driver and had alcohol in his body without relying on compelled statements made under highway traffic legislation.

The court excluded the accused's statements regarding being the driver and consuming alcohol as compelled statements under the Charter.

However, the court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was the driver based on witness identification at the accident scene, independent of the excluded statements.

The court admitted the Intoxilyzer results into evidence.

The accused, charged with multiple offences including assault and using an imitation firearm, moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on three charges at the close of the Crown's case.

The court granted the motion regarding the assault on Natasha Fridgant due to a lack of evidence, as she failed to adopt her preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the imitation firearm charge, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to potentially convict the accused as a party to the offence under s. 21(1) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The Crown's case was that the accused struck the complainant with a baseball bat during an altercation over payment for services.

The accused claimed self-defence, asserting that he was attacked by multiple men on the construction site and used the bat defensively.

The court found significant inconsistencies and frailties in the Crown's witnesses' testimony, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the injuries sustained by the accused.

The documented injuries on the accused were inconsistent with the Crown's version of events and raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused acted in self-defence.

The court acquitted the accused on all three counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including procuring a woman to engage in prostitution, possession and transmission of child pornography, marijuana trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and failure to comply with probation.

The court found the defendant not guilty on the charge of making an arrangement for the sexual abuse of a child, accepting his testimony that he was attempting to identify and rob child predators rather than actually arrange abuse.

The sentencing reflects the lower end of the range for the offences committed, with significant credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest conditions.

The court imposed concurrent sentences with probation and community service requirements.

The offender was sentenced for his role in a violent nighttime robbery of two victims in a public park.

The offender and his co-accused used an imitation firearm and a cleaver-like knife to threaten the victims, who were also subjected to gratuitous physical violence including being pistol-whipped, kicked, and punched.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the unprovoked violence and the offender's prior record against his rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' incarceration, less 15 months of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve.

The defendant was charged with five Criminal Code offences involving sexual misconduct against his stepson (A.B.) and biological son (C.D.) over a period spanning 1995-2010.

The Crown alleged sexual interference and sexual assault against both complainants.

The trial proceeded on credibility and reliability of the two complainants' evidence, as the defendant did not testify.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault against A.B. (Count 3) but acquitted on the sexual interference charges against both complainants.

The court found the defendant guilty of simple assault (not sexual assault) against C.D., finding reasonable doubt as to the sexual nature of the contact.

The court rejected the Crown's similar fact evidence application and found no collusion between the complainants despite opportunity for such.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The Crown sought preliminary orders in a sexual assault and sexual interference case involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The court granted orders banning publication of the complainant's name, permitting testimony outside the presence of the accused, and allowing a support worker to be present.

The central issue was whether defence counsel should be permitted to be in the adjacent room during cross-examination.

The court ruled that defence counsel must remain in the courtroom and conduct cross-examination remotely via video link, rather than being present in the adjacent room with the witness.