Daisy Bygrave

The offender was found guilty of three counts of trafficking methamphetamine and three counts of possessing property obtained by crime.

The Crown sought a 15-month custodial sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence, noting that a custodial sentence of 6 months or more would result in the loss of his right to appeal a deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court found that the offender was a street-level dealer motivated by his own addiction, had no prior record, and posed a low risk to re-offend.

The court imposed a 21-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including house arrest and a curfew, finding it satisfied the principles of denunciation and deterrence while allowing the offender to retain his right to appeal the removal order.

This decision addresses the constitutionality of routine strip searches of young persons in pre-trial custody, focusing on four Black adolescent female applicants charged in the high-profile homicide of Kenneth Lee.

The court found that routine strip searches, conducted without individualized grounds or prior authorization and involving complete nudity, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead holding that the appropriate remedy was a reduction in sentence for any applicant found guilty, to reflect the Charter breach.

The ruling provides detailed analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the psychological impact of strip searches, and the evolving standards for custodial searches in youth justice settings.

K.W., a young person charged with sexual assault, brought an application to admit expert evidence from a forensic psychologist, Dr. Ilacqua.

The evidence concerned K.W.'s intellectual functioning and susceptibility to suggestive questioning, aiming to assess the reliability and admissibility of a statement K.W. made to the victim's mother, L.G., under the duress provision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) s. 146(7).

The court granted the defence application, finding Dr. Ilacqua qualified and his opinion relevant and necessary to understand K.W.'s vulnerabilities and the potential for duress, given a broad interpretation of "duress" under the YCJA for statements made to non-persons in authority.

The accused, Allick Welcome, was convicted by a jury of sexual assault for removing a condom during consensual sex without the victim's knowledge ("stealthing").

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's emotional and financial impact and the breach of trust, and mitigating factors, such as the low risk of re-offence and the accused's expression of remorse.

A key consideration was the accused's immigration status, as a prison sentence exceeding six months would lead to automatic deportation without appeal.

The court imposed a conditional sentence order of two years less one day, including house arrest and ancillary orders, to allow the accused to appeal any removal order and to consider his family circumstances.

An application was brought by eight young persons to vary a previous court order to explicitly prevent media from disseminating their identifying information, including through private social media messages, in relation to charges of second-degree murder.

The court found that a reporter's actions of contacting individuals on social media and disclosing a young person's name and charges contravened the spirit of the Youth Criminal Justice Act's publication ban under section 110, even if not an intentional breach of the specific prior order.

The court clarified that "publication" under the YCJA includes indiscriminate communication on social media that risks making information known to the general public.

The accused, Efren Chimbo, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault, possession of child pornography, making surreptitious visual recordings, and making child pornography, involving young female models.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the abuse of persons under 18, grooming, and violation of privacy, alongside mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of relevant criminal record, community support, and compliance with bail conditions.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly for offences involving children, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and imposed a global sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

A group of media organizations applied under section 119 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for access to the unredacted youth criminal court records of eight young persons charged with second degree murder.

The Crown and the young persons opposed the application, citing the young persons' heightened privacy interests and fair trial rights.

The court found that while the media had a valid interest in the records, granting access to the entire unredacted file at this early stage was not desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice due to the risk of irreversible harm from inadvertent dissemination of private information.

The court granted partial access to redacted records, including the charging informations and bail release orders, with identifying information removed.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to quash a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The ITO relied heavily on a tip from a confidential informant regarding drug trafficking and firearms possession.

The court applied the Garofoli and Debot frameworks, finding the informant's tip was highly compelling and credible, which compensated for weaknesses in police corroboration.

The court concluded the issuing justice had sufficient reliable information to issue the warrant, finding no s. 8 breach.

Three defendants, Levi Alexander, Vejay Alexander, and Lamar Cyrus, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a planned robbery of a modified starter's pistol resulted in the unintentional shooting death of Alex Perlmutter.

Lamar Cyrus also pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm.

The court accepted joint sentencing recommendations, emphasizing the egregious nature of the offence, the defendants' disregard for court orders (firearms prohibitions, probation conditions), and their serious criminal records.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas (though late) and the harshness of pre-sentencing custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The victim's family provided impact statements detailing their profound loss.

A trial judge declared a mistrial during jury selection for a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

A prospective juror, during a *Parks* challenge, revealed a personal history of sexual assault and stated she could not be impartial.

Despite the triers finding her acceptable and Crown counsel being content, the judge intervened and deferred the juror.

Concerned about potential reversible error in the jury selection process, particularly regarding the court's jurisdiction to excuse the juror at that stage and the impact on already seated jurors, the judge invited submissions on a mistrial.

Defence counsel requested a mistrial, citing the risk to a fair trial.

The judge granted the mistrial, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and avoiding a successful appeal based on procedural errors in jury selection.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim regarding therapeutic Botox injections.

The court found the action was statute-barred because the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts and attributed her symptoms to the Botox treatment well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to produce expert evidence establishing a breach of the standard of care and causation meant there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and unlawful confinement after an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, testified that the accused forced his way into her room, ripped off her underwear, and punched her repeatedly when she tried to escape.

The accused claimed they engaged in consensual sexual activity that went wrong and that he punched her to stop her from using the telephone.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it contradictory and implausible.

While the court found the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent, it accepted her evidence that she did not consent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused were charged with possessing marihuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the court discharged both accused on all four counts.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

While the court found sufficient evidence that the accused had resided at the premises where the drugs were discovered, the Crown failed to establish sufficient evidence that the accused had knowledge of and control over the controlled substances on or about the date of the search.

The absence of evidence regarding the accused's whereabouts in the days preceding the search, combined with the presence of identification documents belonging to unknown persons and evidence of other criminal activity at the premises, created reasonable alternative explanations for the presence of the drugs that did not involve the accused.

Dion Bacchus and Stephen Motoo brought an application for a stay of charges, alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter rights due to an approximately 41-month delay between being charged and the impending trial date.

Applying the R. v. Jordan framework, the court calculated the total delay, subtracted defence-attributable delay, and found the net delay for both applicants exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances, particularly regarding a significant delay in DNA evidence disclosure.

The court found the applicants' s. 11(b) rights were infringed and stayed the charges.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a pending fraud charge, alleging unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Applying the pre-Jordan Morin framework, the court assessed neutral intake time, Crown disclosure delay, defence delay, institutional delay in both the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court, and prejudice.

Although the court found a period of Crown responsibility arising from delayed disclosure and recognized meaningful institutional delay, the combined delay fell within the lower end of the applicable guideline range and the evidence of actual prejudice was weak.

The stay application under s. 24(1) was dismissed.