Cynthia Valarezo

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 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 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.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

She was pulled over after being observed swerving within her lane.

A drug recognition evaluation was conducted, and a urine sample was obtained which tested positive for GHB, 7-Aminoclonazepam, methamphetamine, and amphetamine.

The Crown relied on observations of the accused's driving, her performance on the drug evaluation test, and toxicology evidence to establish impairment.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug at the time of driving.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following his arrest on December 11, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused drove a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and subsequently refused to comply with breath demands made by two police officers.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demands, alleging violations of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make the initial breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's flight from police, strong odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and staggering.

The court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample but acquitted him of impaired driving, finding the evidence of impairment, while suspicious, did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel from the record on the basis of a conflict of interest, as counsel had previously represented a former co-accused (now a Crown witness) at a bail hearing.

The court dismissed the application, finding that no confidential information attributable to a solicitor-client relationship was imparted during the brief bail retainer.

The court concluded that a reasonably informed member of the public would not perceive a disqualifying conflict of interest.