David Zbarsky

The court sentenced K.D., a young person, for being an accessory after the fact to the offence of discharging a firearm with intent, following a guilty plea.

The case arose from a fatal shooting at the Pickering Casino Resort.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, but the court found that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted and that a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold K.D. accountable.

The court imposed a 6-month deferred custody and supervision order followed by 12 months of probation, with conditions, and ancillary orders including a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The applicant, R.Y.D., brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded legal defence, arguing he lacked the financial means and that counsel was essential for a fair trial.

The Crown opposed, asserting incomplete financial disclosure and that counsel was not essential.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide complete, accurate, and credible evidence of his financial circumstances, thus not satisfying his onus to prove he lacked the means to employ counsel.

The defendant, Emilio Gonzalez-Ramirez, was found guilty of aggravated assault and use of an imitation firearm.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering factors such as the complainant's young age, the unprovoked nature of the assault, the use of an imitation firearm, the defendant's mental health issues (schizophrenia), and the significant collateral immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence with mitigating factors, including the defendant's mental illness and the harshness of pre-trial custody, ultimately imposing a sentence structured to preserve the defendant's right to appeal a potential deportation order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual interference, and use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.

The charges stemmed from an incident in a park where the 14-year-old complainant alleged she was tackled, sexually assaulted, and struck with an imitation firearm.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant stole his battery charger and fell.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's account.

While finding the accused guilty of aggravated assault (a lesser included offence of aggravated sexual assault) and use of an imitation firearm, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the sexual nature of the touching, leading to an acquittal on the aggravated sexual assault and sexual interference charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the quantity of alcohol in her blood was over the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while there was a minor technical breach of section 8 regarding the requirement to exit the vehicle, the more serious breaches involved violations of section 10(b) rights to counsel.

The police failed to provide timely notice of rights to counsel at the roadside and failed to exercise adequate diligence in facilitating access to counsel of choice at the police station, instead channelling the defendant to duty counsel.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child victim.

The Crown alleged that the defendant touched the victim's vaginal area and kissed her on the mouth during a visit to the victim's home in December 2016.

The defendant did not testify and challenged both the credibility of the victim's evidence and whether the Crown could prove the offence occurred within the six-month limitation period for summary conviction proceedings.

The court found the victim's evidence credible and reliable, and determined that the offence occurred in December 2016, within the limitation period.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a traffic stop.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath samples obtained in violation of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The investigating officer failed to communicate an approved screening device demand "forthwith" upon formation of reasonable suspicion, delaying approximately two minutes.

Additionally, the officer failed to provide rights to counsel while awaiting delivery of the ASD, despite believing the delay could be 15-20 minutes.

The court found both breaches established on a balance of probabilities.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence, emphasizing that the breaches resulted from deficient training of the investigating officer that was not corrected by the training officer present at the scene.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, flight from police, and driving with excess alcohol (Over 80).

The trial involved both Charter and merits challenges.

The defendant alleged breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter regarding the breath demand and right to counsel.

On the merits, the defendant argued the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable and that the dangerous driving and flight from police charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty of Over 80 but acquitted him of dangerous driving and flight from police due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine after selling his schizophrenia medication to an undercover officer.

The Crown sought a 90-day intermittent sentence, while the defence requested probation due to the offender's mental health issues.

The court found that deterrence and punishment assume less importance for mentally ill offenders and that medical intervention was the only effective form of deterrence.

The court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed two years of probation with conditions focused on psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation.

The offender pleaded guilty to historical offences of break and enter and sexual assault with a weapon committed in 1998, after being linked by DNA evidence in 2013.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four years, characterizing the offence as a home invasion, while the defence sought a non-custodial or conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's significant Gladue factors, his extensive rehabilitation efforts over the past five years, and the profound impact on the victim.

The court distinguished the case from typical home invasions and sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with four Criminal Code offences arising from alleged conduct on May 3, 2014: assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, theft under, and breach of probation.

The case turned entirely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, a homeless woman with substance addictions.

The court found the complainant credible despite her difficult circumstances and inconsistencies on peripheral matters.

The court accepted her evidence that the accused assaulted her, causing a head injury; refused to return her cellphone when she requested it to call police; and raped her at knifepoint.

The presence of the accused's semen in the complainant's underwear corroborated the sexual assault allegation.

The accused was convicted on all four counts.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The trial focused on the identity of the driver and whether the evidence proved care and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown's case relied on a McDonald's employee's observations, the arresting officer's testimony, and Breathalyzer results.

The defence called the accused's brother and cousin who testified regarding the evening's events.

The court found the accused guilty of care and control over 80 but acquitted on the impaired charge and found insufficient evidence regarding the McDonald's incident.

The accused was sentenced to the minimum fine of $1,000 plus a $150 surcharge and a 12-month driving prohibition.