David Shulman

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking his friend in the head with a baseball bat during an altercation.

The court considered the offender's long history of alcohol abuse, remorse, and the exceptionally harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 5 years before credit, and after applying a 1.5:1 credit for 1,100 days of pre-sentence custody, imposed a sentence of 175 days to serve, plus 3 years of probation.

The court noted the sentence of less than 6 months preserves the offender's right to appeal his likely deportation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal from the Summary Conviction Appeal Court's refusal to extend time to appeal a 2014 sentence.

The applicant argued the original sentence was illegal, an issue not raised previously.

The Court of Appeal found a strong argument for illegality and granted leave to appeal, setting aside the SCAC's refusal and remitting the matter to the SCAC to determine if time should be extended for an appeal on the legality of the sentence and, if so, to determine the appropriate sentence.

The applicant, Cecil Seerattan, sought release pending appeal of his domestic violence convictions, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed and misinformed regarding immigration consequences, and that the trial judge erred in denying an adjournment to set aside the plea.

The Crown opposed release, contending the appeal lacked merit.

The Court of Appeal granted the release, finding the appeal was not frivolous.

The court determined there was a firm foundation that the applicant was misinformed about the collateral immigration consequences of his plea and that he was subjectively prejudiced as a result.

Public interest considerations, including the trial judge's plea to immigration authorities and the applicant's successful bail history, also supported release.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his female friend to death.

The Crown sought a 14-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, breach of trust, the savage nature of the killing, and the offender's prior record for domestic violence.

However, the offender's severe mental illness at the time of the offence significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness.

Balancing these factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing the victim 34 times in his basement.

The defence conceded the accused killed the victim but argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code due to severe paranoid delusions and schizophrenia.

The court found the accused suffered from a disease of the mind but rejected the NCR defence, concluding the defence failed to prove the delusions caused the killing or rendered the accused incapable of knowing the act was morally wrong.

The court also excluded similar fact evidence of the accused's prior violence against women.

Finding a reasonable doubt on the element of forcible confinement required for first-degree murder, the court convicted the accused of second-degree murder.

The accused, Richard Pereira, charged with first-degree murder, brought a directed verdict application to reduce the charge to second-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence for first-degree murder based on forcible confinement under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code, but insufficient evidence for planned and deliberate murder under s. 231(2).

The application was dismissed, and the charge of first-degree murder based on forcible confinement proceeded.

Three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a botched home invasion robbery targeting a drug dealer.

The offenders planned to use extreme violence, bringing weapons and gasoline, but mistakenly encountered the target's brother, who was stabbed to death by one of the offenders.

The court found the offence to be an aggravated manslaughter due to the high degree of planning, the home invasion context, and the extreme violence intended.

The court sentenced the stabber to 13 years and the other two offenders to 11 years, less credit for pre-trial custody.

Requests for enhanced credit due to lockdown conditions were denied for lack of evidence of detrimental impact.

Three injured workers appealed convictions or acquittal reversals under section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which makes it an offence to wilfully fail to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances affecting entitlement to benefits.

The Court of Appeal clarified the mens rea requirement for this offence, holding that the Crown must prove the accused knew of a material change, intended not to inform the Board, and either intended to receive unentitled benefits or foresaw such receipt as substantially certain.

The court restored one acquittal and ordered new trials for two convictions.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed on June 5, 2012 by the Ontario Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 6 months less one day due to potential immigration consequences that were not known during the original sentencing process.

The accused was convicted by a jury of fraud over $5000 for his role in a scheme involving fake loans and unreturned due diligence fees totaling over $500,000 USD.

The court found the accused played a lesser role than his co-conspirator but still lied to victims, causing significant financial and personal harm.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds, the court determined a fit sentence was 3 years' imprisonment, which was reduced to time served due to pre-sentence custody credit.

A restitution order for 50% of the loss ($341,263.04 CAD) was also imposed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter after being charged with second degree murder in the fatal stabbing of an intimate partner during a domestic argument.

The sentencing judge rejected the offender’s claim that the victim accidentally stabbed himself during a struggle and found that the offender intentionally stabbed the victim in anger during an argument.

Aggravating factors included the domestic relationship, the use of a knife, and the offender’s failure to seek medical assistance for the victim after the stabbing.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, positive rehabilitative efforts while in custody, and difficult personal background.

The court concluded that the moral blameworthiness placed the offence in the upper range of manslaughter cases and imposed a penitentiary sentence of eight years, with credit for pre‑trial custody.

In a trial for second degree murder, the Crown and defence brought pre-trial applications regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The defence sought to introduce evidence of prior violent acts by the deceased to support a claim of self-defence.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the deceased's good character, the accused's bad character, and ante-mortem statements made by the deceased.

The court ruled that evidence of the deceased's prior violent acts was admissible.

The Crown's application to introduce the deceased's good character was largely dismissed, except for evidence of his non-violent disposition at work.

The Crown's application to introduce the accused's bad character was dismissed due to its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.

Most of the ante-mortem statements were ruled inadmissible hearsay, save for a statement of intention and lay opinion regarding the accused's tone of voice.

The accused brought extensive pre‑trial motions in a second degree murder prosecution following a mistrial, seeking exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct during a reinvestigation.

The defence argued that police interviews of eyewitnesses and alibi witnesses were coercive, leading to unreliable identification and the destruction of alibi evidence, contrary to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The court found significant improprieties in certain police interviews, including leading identification questioning and oppressive tactics toward an alibi witness, but concluded the conduct did not amount to an overarching abuse of process warranting a stay.

The court held the main eyewitness’s identification evidence was admissible, but restricted the Crown’s use of another witness’s statement to credibility purposes only and excluded portions of an alibi witness’s statement obtained through oppressive interrogation.

Lesser evidentiary remedies were imposed to ensure trial fairness.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5 years (less pre-trial custody credit) for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm without a license.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering his previous plan to kill his wife as an aggravating factor, given he had pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for the Crown dropping an attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the prior plan was a valid aggravating factor in this serious domestic assault involving a loaded rifle.

The appeal was dismissed.