David Didiodato

The accused was charged with multiple drug and weapons offences following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

Police located four individuals in the home, along with significant quantities of narcotics, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms.

The court applied the principles of constructive possession to determine whether the accused had knowledge and control of the seized items.

The accused was found guilty of possessing the items located in his personal bedroom, including a rifle under the bed, but was acquitted of possessing items found in common areas or in the immediate vicinity of other occupants.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Mr. Brad Southwind for second-degree murder.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which is set at 15 years.

The judge considered aggravating factors such as the brutal nature of the crime (17 stab wounds), elements of planning, and the offender's lengthy criminal record with violent entries.

Mitigating factors included the offender's indigenous background (Gladue factors), severe mental health issues (drug-induced psychosis), and substance abuse, which impacted his ability to participate in reports.

Despite the need for judicial restraint for Indigenous offenders, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the heinous nature of the crime and the offender's violent history.

The appellant, D.K.S., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellate court found that the trial judge made material errors in assessing the complainant's evidence, specifically regarding a significant inconsistency in her testimony about the duration of the alleged touching, and misapprehended evidence from a defence witness regarding the complainant's time outside the building.

Furthermore, the trial judge failed to apply proper care when assessing the appellant's credibility, given his language difficulties, and erroneously discounted his good character evidence.

The defendant, Brad Southwind, was accused of first-degree murder.

The case involved a judge-alone retrial following a mistrial.

The central issue was the mens rea component, specifically whether the defendant's severe intoxication and psychotic delusions, amplified by substance abuse, negated the intent required for murder or planning and deliberation for first-degree murder.

The court found that despite the defendant's impaired state, he possessed the necessary intent for murder, relying on the brutal nature of the stabbing and expert psychiatric testimony.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding planning and deliberation due to the unreliability of the defendant's recollections and the impulsive nature suggested by his statements and expert opinion.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via videoconference from California.

The defence opposed the application, arguing it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice due to the Crown's delay in notifying the complainant and the loss of in-person cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding that the mandatory language of s. 714.2 applied since the witness was outside Canada, and the defence's concerns did not amount to a contravention of fundamental justice.

Lorne Clifford Clement was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies with his prior police statement and admitted intoxication.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and compelling.

The court rejected arguments based on stereotypical behaviour of sexual assault victims, citing appellate authority.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery and break and enter, following a home invasion where the victims were sprayed with bear mace.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the accused's DNA found on a bear spray canister located outside the residence.

The court found that the forensic evidence could not establish how or when the DNA was deposited on the canister, nor could it definitively link the exterior canister to the substance used inside the home.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence did not lead to the sole reasonable inference of guilt, the court acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was tried on a three-count indictment for the armed robbery of a gas station convenience store.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, the eyewitness testimony of the store clerk, and recognition evidence from police officers and the accused's family members.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable, noting inconsistencies, the influence of police suggestions on the clerk, and the poor quality of the video footage.

Concluding that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all counts.

B.S. was convicted of indecent assault, a historical offense occurring almost 40 years prior.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months, while the offender requested a conditional sentence or a "short, sharp" intermittent sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the escalation of abusive behavior, the significant age disparity between the offender (18-20) and the victim (10-13), the victim's vulnerability, and the profound, lasting impact on the victim as detailed in her victim impact statement.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age (56), a positive pre-sentence report, gainful employment, positive community contributions, past efforts to address depression and substance abuse, and no prior custodial sentences.

The court determined that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and general and specific deterrence, which are paramount in sexual offense cases against children.

A "short, sharp" sentence was also deemed inadequate.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

A requested order under section 161(1) of the Criminal Code was denied as unnecessary given the offender's history since the offense.

The accused, Torcaso and Maione, were found guilty by a jury of offences stemming from a "home invasion" break and enter and assault.

Torcaso broke down the door and assaulted the victim, Mr. Gridzak, causing minor injuries.

Maione entered subsequently, was seen with a knife, and backed another individual into the kitchen, though he later attempted to calm the situation.

The Crown sought custodial sentences of 6-9 months for Torcaso and 4-6 months for Maione.

The defence sought suspended sentences.

The court found the incident constituted a "home invasion" under s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code, an aggravating factor, but distinguished it from "surprise" home invasions that typically attract penitentiary terms, noting the victims were aware someone was coming.

Balancing rehabilitation for youthful offenders with general deterrence and denunciation, the court imposed custodial sentences.

Torcaso was sentenced to six months in jail followed by 2 years probation, plus DNA and s. 109 orders.

Maione was sentenced to 60 days in jail, to be served intermittently, followed by 24 months probation, plus DNA and s. 109 orders.