Daniel DeSantis

The defendants were charged with first-degree murder for allegedly assisting two unidentified shooters in killing the victim at a social club.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, GPS data, and surveillance video, to prove the defendants helped position the getaway vehicle and locate the victim.

The court found that while the defendants knowingly assisted in a plan targeting the victim, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether they knew the perpetrators intended to commit murder.

However, applying section 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded the defendants knew or ought to have known that a probable consequence of their common unlawful purpose was an inherently dangerous act.

Both defendants were found guilty of manslaughter as an included offence.

The court imposed sentence on a long-term offender designated in a prior decision dated July 21, 2025.

The offender was convicted of robbery and had a substantial criminal history including prior robbery convictions and an 18-year sentence for attempted murder.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The defence sought a time-served sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 10 months, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit of 4 years and 9 months, resulting in 2 years and 1 month to be served in federal penitentiary, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The sentence was based on the need for intensive treatment in a federal penitentiary to address the offender's polysubstance abuse, gambling addiction, and antisocial personality disorder.

Following a guilty plea to robbery, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation based on a lengthy violent record, institutional misconduct, and expert psychiatric evidence of high violent recidivism risk.

Applying the dangerous offender framework, the court accepted that the index robbery was a serious personal injury offence and that the offender posed a substantial risk of future violence absent treatment and controls, but held the Crown failed to prove intractability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that the offender had never received substantial treatment for polysubstance abuse and gambling addiction, despite evidence those conditions materially drove the offending, and that he had previously remained offence-free during a structured statutory release and for years thereafter.

The application for dangerous offender designation was therefore rejected.

The court instead found the statutory criteria for long-term offender designation met and directed that further sentencing submissions be heard.

This decision addresses the credibility and reliability assessments in a sexual assault trial involving three counts against Jun-Feng Zhang.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including witness testimony and digital communications, applying the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt.

Despite inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the judge found the accused's testimony detailed and credible, ultimately acquitting Zhang on all counts due to reasonable doubt.

Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman pled guilty to possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing was delayed due to the unavailability of an Impact of Race and Culture Report, resulting in an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report addressing racial factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession in a vehicle on a public road and being wanted on an outstanding warrant, alongside numerous mitigating factors such as youth, lack of criminal record, employment, family support, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The judge found that a penitentiary sentence was not required and imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, with enhanced credit for time served under strict house arrest conditions, along with ancillary orders including DNA sample, weapons prohibition, victim fine surcharge, and forfeiture of seized items.

The accused, Jun-Feng Zhang, brought a second application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his s.11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, specifically analyzing a 164-day delay that arose during the trial when the complainant required independent legal advice regarding privacy rights in redacted text messages.

The court found this delay to be a discrete exceptional circumstance, as it was unforeseen and the Crown made reasonable efforts to remedy it.

Consequently, the total net delay remained below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, and the application was dismissed.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was found guilty of possession of a loaded, restricted semi-automatic firearm and careless storage.

In this sentencing decision, the court considered aggravating factors such as the prevalence of gun violence in Toronto, the presence of a laser sight, and the risk to younger siblings due to careless storage.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth (18 at the time of arrest), lack of criminal record, extensive family and community support, demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation, and a severe mental health crisis experienced during pre-sentence incarceration due to harsh conditions and inadequate medical response.

The court also considered the impact of anti-Black racism on the accused's life and the significant delay in obtaining an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The judge quantified "Duncan credit" for harsh incarceration conditions and "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions.

The court ultimately imposed a reformatory sentence, finding that a penitentiary term was not required given the unique circumstances, and allowed the sentence to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Zhuxi Xi Shen, who was convicted of sexual assault after a judge-alone trial.

The court found that Mr. Shen sexually assaulted the complainant twice: once while she was incapacitated and again after she awoke, without her consent.

The assaults were premeditated, and the complainant suffered profound physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought a five-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed three years, effectively time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's vulnerability, premeditation, and the severe impact on the victim, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, youth, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also addressed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers, Downes, and Duncan), particularly the harsh conditions experienced in detention.

A sentence of four years and one month was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry compliance, and a no-contact order.

The accused, Jun-Feng Zhang, brought a motion to stay charges of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 23 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by *R. v. Jordan*.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant portions to defence inaction and miscommunication, ultimately calculating a net delay of 17.5 months, which falls below the *Jordan* ceiling.

Consequently, the application to stay the charges was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone conviction for sexual assault, the applicant sought a mistrial based on late disclosure of the Information to Obtain for a warrant authorizing the search of seized electronic devices and on an alleged unconstitutional search of his iPhone.

The court held that prior defence counsel had not exercised due diligence in requesting that the sealed ITO be unsealed and disclosed, and further held that any alleged prejudice could be addressed by hearing the s. 8 application on its merits.

Applying the governing principles for computer and cell phone searches, the court found that the warrant authorized the impugned search, that the full extraction created a forensic container without itself intruding on privacy, and that the subsequent review of the extracted data was conducted reasonably and in good faith within the warrant's scope.

The court therefore dismissed the s. 8 application, found no s. 7 breach, and refused to declare a mistrial.

The defendant, Zhu Xi Shen, applied for judicial interim release following his conviction for sexual assault, after his initial bail was vacated due to flight risk concerns.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, including a new release plan with an additional residential surety, a significant increase in the pledged bail amount, and the proposed use of ankle monitoring.

The defendant also intended to bring a Charter application to reopen the trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that despite the enhanced release plan, the defendant remained a significant flight risk due to the serious nature of the offence, the lengthy sentence sought by the Crown, his means to abscond, and the limitations of electronic monitoring in preventing flight.

The defendant, Zhuxi Xi Shen, brought a second application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application was summarily dismissed by Justice Spies.

The court refused to grant leave to hear the application due to the applicant's repeated failure to comply with filing deadlines under the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the Provincial Practice Direction, noting a flagrant disregard for prior rulings and procedural rules.

Furthermore, the court found that even if leave were granted, the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the total delay, after accounting for periods previously addressed by another judge and exceptional circumstances (hung jury, pandemic backlog, complainant's unavailability), fell well within the presumptive Jordan timeline.

The court also found no basis to exercise residual discretion to grant a stay.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was charged with five firearms-related offences after a search warrant executed on his residence located a restricted semi-automatic handgun and ammunition in a Gucci satchel hanging on his bedroom door.

The prosecution relied on constructive possession, arguing the accused had knowledge and control of the items.

The defence proposed two alternative inferences: that a parent planted the satchel or that it belonged solely to his 12-year-old brother.

The court dismissed both alternative inferences as speculative or unreasonable, finding that the accused, an 18-year-old adult, had knowledge and control of the sophisticated weapon and its accessories given its location and the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty on all five counts.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual assault with a weapon, arising from a violent home invasion, as well as firearms offences.

The 69-year-old victim suffered severe physical and emotional trauma.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the gratuitous violence and use of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as harsh presentence custody conditions during the pandemic.

A global sentence of 16 years' imprisonment was imposed, less 39 months of enhanced credit for presentence custody.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion robbery where the victim was beaten, tied up, and had his pants and underwear removed.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA found on a bandage at the scene, surveillance video, and items seized from the accused's residence that matched those used in the robbery.

The accused and a defence witness testified that the witness committed the robbery using items borrowed from the accused, but the court rejected this evidence as not credible.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and circumstantial evidence principles, the court found the accused guilty of the home invasion offences.

The 22-year-old offender was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, drug trafficking, and breaching a weapons prohibition order after his mother discovered drugs in his backpack and called the police.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of carrying a loaded handgun in public and breaching a prior order against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, genuine remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court imposed a global sentence of 1,335 days, reduced by 800 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by three years of probation.

During a trial for two counts of first degree murder, the Crown sought to cross-examine the accused on text messages and a video clip suggesting he possessed a firearm prior to the homicides.

The court ruled that the Crown could not suggest inferences from the text messages, as it would operate unfairly.

However, the court allowed the jury to consider the video clip showing the accused allegedly pointing a firearm, finding it admissible as evidence of access to means and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The accused, charged with two counts of first degree murder, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone records, and expert evidence on the 'code of silence' to establish motive and opportunity.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict based on the available evidence and reasonable inferences.

The court found that the totality of the direct and circumstantial evidence provided a sufficient basis for a jury to find the essential elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to stay charges of impaired driving and "over 80" pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 19 months and 25 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets an 18-month presumptive ceiling for constitutionally tolerable delay.

After calculating defence delay at 2 months and 21 days, the net delay was 17 months and 4 days, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found that the defence met the onus of demonstrating that the delay markedly exceeded the reasonable time requirements for a simple impaired driving case, considering the substantial state delay and the court's earlier admonitions that went unheeded.

The motion was allowed and the charges were stayed.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking to adduce third‑party suspect evidence implicating other individuals in the killings.

The proposed evidence relied primarily on a witness’s recorded police statement alleging that one individual had confessed to committing the murders.

The court conducted a detailed hearsay analysis and held that the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the witness’s motive to fabricate, serious drug abuse, extensive criminal record, inconsistencies in her accounts, and the absence of meaningful cross‑examination.

The alleged confession was also inadmissible both as a declaration against penal interest and under the principled hearsay exception.

The court further declined to relax evidentiary rules for defence evidence because the statements were inherently unreliable.