Davin M.K. Garg

The applicant applied to strike his guilty pleas to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, arguing they were involuntary and uninformed due to pressure from his counsel and family, and confusion over the charges.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant actively participated in resolution discussions, understood the nature of the allegations, and made a conscious, volitional choice to plead guilty.

The court also found no miscarriage of justice, as there was no basis to question the applicant's factual guilt or his belief in his own guilt.

The accused was sentenced after admitting guilt to possessing protonitazene, cocaine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, possessing proceeds of crime, possessing a semi-automatic handgun with accessible ammunition, and breaching two weapons prohibition orders.

The court treated protonitazene trafficking as falling at the highest end of gravity because of the drug’s extreme potency, unpredictability, and presentation as counterfeit oxycodone, and found the trafficking to be an upper-level commercial operation supported by large quantities of drugs and cash.

Despite remorse, family support, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and some limited mitigation for a Charter breach and an improper strip search, the court held that denunciation and deterrence had to predominate given the accused’s related prior record and escalation in offending.

Applying totality, the court imposed a 15-year global sentence, then credited pre-sentence custody and the strip-search deduction, leaving 11 years, 7 months, and 2 days to serve.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 904 days.

The Crown argued that after deducting defence delay, the net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court attributed 289 days to defence delay, including periods of counsel unavailability and time to review late disclosure.

The net delay of 615 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that late disclosure by the Crown was the precipitating cause of the adjournment and the need to reschedule the trial.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The applicant, convicted of multiple sexual assaults, intentionally failed to report to the provincial sex offender registry to challenge the constitutionality of Christopher's Law.

He argued that the mandatory registration and lifetime reporting provisions violated s. 7 of the Charter.

Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Ndhlovu, the court found that both provisions were overbroad because they captured offenders who posed no increased risk of reoffending.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that the provincial registry's focus on time-sensitive investigations justified the overbreadth under s. 1.

The provisions were declared unconstitutional as applied to the applicant, and the charge of failing to report was stayed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol after crashing his vehicle into a pillar in an underground parking garage.

Although no one saw him driving, the court found that circumstantial evidence established he was the driver.

The court rejected the defence's Charter arguments regarding the timing of the breath demand and alleged racial profiling.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

On a Charter warrant review, the applicant challenged a CDSA search warrant for a nine-acre rural property containing a dwelling and multiple outbuildings.

The court held that the corrected ITO supported a reasonable inference that a drug stash had been moved from an urban apartment-related location to the rural property, but did not provide sufficient precision to justify a search of every building on the property.

The warrant was therefore overbroad and the search infringed s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court nevertheless admitted the seized firearm, drugs, and related evidence because the police misconduct was not egregious, the privacy impact was moderate, and society’s interest in a trial on the merits was exceptionally strong.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and uttering death threats following a confrontation in a parking lot near a Tim Hortons.

The incident arose from a noise complaint about music blaring from a vehicle.

The accused struck the complainant in the head with a baseball bat, causing serious facial injuries requiring surgical intervention.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, but acquitted him of attempted murder and the death threat charges.

The court rejected the defence of person for the aggravated assault, finding the response grossly disproportionate and unreasonable.

However, self-defence was found to apply to the assault with a weapon charge (the swing at Lucas Renzella during the fight) and to the uttering threats charges.

The applicant was charged with drug and firearm offences following police searches of a residence and motor vehicles that yielded fentanyl, cocaine, a handgun, ammunition, and cash.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrants through a Garofoli review, arguing that the information to obtain (ITO) contained material omissions and misrepresentations that would have prevented the warrants from issuing.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, made various corrections through excision and addition of information, and ultimately found that the corrected ITO provided a sufficient basis for the warrants to have issued.

The court found no deliberate misleading or recklessness by the affiant and upheld the warrants, making the evidence admissible at trial.

The accused was tried for assaulting his girlfriend's young son on four counts: one count of assault by choking and three counts of common assault.

The Crown alleged the accused picked the complainant up by his neck, threw him onto a bed, forced his head into a pillow, and on separate occasions slapped and kicked the complainant.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally committed the alleged acts.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, rejected the defence evidence from the complainant's mother as unreliable, and found the Crown had proven all elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The offender pleaded not guilty but accepted an agreed statement of fact regarding three offences: break and enter a dwelling house, sexual assault, and uttering threats to cause death.

The offender, a 20-year-old first offender with no criminal record, broke into a neighbour's home at night while intoxicated, confined and threatened the occupants, and sexually assaulted one of them.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a remaining custodial term of 43 months.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, rehabilitative potential, and family support as mitigating factors, but emphasized the serious and violent nature of the offences and their significant impact on the victim and her family.

The applicant sought a ruling on privilege regarding communications made during couples' therapy with a registered psychotherapist.

The Crown sought access to admissions made by the applicant to the therapist concerning an alleged sexual assault of the complainant (the applicant's spouse).

The court recognized a case-by-case privilege under the Wigmore test, finding that the communications originated in confidence, confidentiality was essential to the therapeutic relationship, the therapist-client relationship ought to be fostered, and the interests in protecting the communications outweighed the Crown's interest in accessing them.

The court granted the application, finding that the privilege would not undermine the truth-seeking function of the trial because the complainant was available to testify, the applicant had already admitted to the conduct in an affidavit, and no mandatory reporting obligation applied.

A young Black man was sentenced for possessing a loaded handgun in a Hamilton pub while intoxicated and in breach of court orders.

The court considered systemic anti-Black racism and personal disadvantages as mitigating factors affecting moral culpability, but emphasized the gravity of the offence, the aggravating circumstances of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place while intoxicated and confrontational, and the offender's extensive criminal record.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, followed by probation with culturally appropriate programming.

This decision addresses the timing and legality of police detention and breath sample demands in an impaired driving case involving Erin Wanner.

The court found that Ms. Wanner was not detained until the police demanded a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD).

The Crown failed to prove that the screening demand was made immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, resulting in breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Despite these breaches, the breath sample evidence was admitted under section 24(2) because excluding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Wanner was the driver who crashed into a light pole with three children as passengers and found her guilty.

This decision addresses the application of s. 530 of the Criminal Code regarding an accused's right to a trial in the official language of their choice.

The court held that the Crown met its burden to show that Kevin Nguyen could not have his trial in French due to insufficient proficiency to follow proceedings or instruct counsel in French.

The ruling emphasizes that the right to a French trial requires actual ability to participate meaningfully in that language, not merely a preference or cultural identity.

The decision also clarifies that administrative convenience is irrelevant and that the right to a fair trial may be compromised if the accused cannot follow the proceedings in the chosen language.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Frank Dimillo guilty of multiple firearm-related offences, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a firearm while prohibited, but acquitted him of aggravated assault.

The conviction rested primarily on the reliable and corroborated statement of his son, Blake Dimillo, who recounted the accused’s confession to shooting Morgan Richardson in the face.

Despite Blake’s in-court recantation, the judge preferred the original statement due to its precision, corroboration with physical evidence, and Blake’s motivation to tell the truth at the time.

The court carefully analyzed the circumstantial evidence, DNA findings, and the accused’s opportunity and motive, concluding the shooting was intentional and that the accused was the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a mother convicted after trial of assault with a weapon against her young son over nearly three years.

The court rejects the parties' joint proposal for a suspended sentence with probation, finding it insufficient to reflect the offender’s moral blameworthiness, the child’s vulnerability, and the serious harm caused.

The judge emphasizes the limited applicability of the Anthony-Cook test post-trial, the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, and the aggravating factors including the pattern of conduct, breach of trust, and impact on the victim.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender’s progress and lack of prior record, the court imposes an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a weapons prohibition.

This decision addresses sentencing for breaches of a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, imposed to protect children from sexual violence.

The accused, Lord Leland Gilbert, was acquitted of sexual offences but found guilty of breaching the prohibition order by associating with a child without required permissions.

The court imposed an 18-month global jail sentence (15 months for the prohibition breach and 3 months consecutive for breaching probation), followed by 3 years probation.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of breaching such orders, the aggravating factors including the nature and blatant disregard of the breach, and the offender’s prior record.

The court also discusses the application of the Kienapple principle, Gladue considerations, and the jump principle in sentencing.

In this criminal proceeding, the Crown applied to admit the out-of-court hearsay statements of the complainant and the accused's son under the principled exception.

The complainant had disavowed his police statement identifying the accused as the shooter, and the son recanted his statement that he heard the accused confess.

The court denied the application for the complainant's statement, finding it lacked threshold reliability because the complainant was unavailable for meaningful cross-examination.

Conversely, the court admitted the son's statement, finding it met the threshold of procedural reliability because he was available for full cross-examination at trial.

The offender was sentenced to a global six-year prison term after being convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving his eight-year-old daughter.

The sentencing judge balanced the severe gravity of the offences and the profound breach of trust against the offender's Indigenous background and systemic Gladue factors.

The court emphasized the significant psychological and emotional harm suffered by the young victim and her family.

Ultimately, the court determined that a penitentiary sentence was necessary to prioritize denunciation and deterrence, while also imposing various ancillary protection and registration orders.

This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.

The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.