Deniz Sarikaya

The United States sought the extradition of three respondents for their alleged participation in a scheme to defraud a major technology company's retail stores by manipulating point-of-sale devices.

One respondent consented to committal.

The remaining two respondents argued there was insufficient evidence of their identity and participation to justify committal.

Applying the test under section 29(1) of the Extradition Act and the standard from Ferras, the court found that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find both respondents guilty based on the certified record of the case, which included video surveillance, co-conspirator evidence, and loss prevention testimony.

Committal for surrender was ordered for all respondents.

The defendants applied to replace police bail conditions imposed under section 503(2.1) of the Criminal Code with a judicial bail order under section 515.

The defendants were charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and public mischief arising from an altercation with a civilian.

The Crown sought to maintain three contested conditions: residency in Ontario, a curfew from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am, and abstention from alcohol consumption.

The court found that the residency condition was unnecessary to ensure attendance in court, the curfew was punitive and unnecessary given the situational nature of the alleged offence, and the alcohol prohibition lacked evidentiary support and was not necessary to address public safety or confidence in the administration of justice.

The court replaced the police bail with a judicial bail order removing the three contested conditions while maintaining no-contact provisions, weapons prohibitions, and notification requirements.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid refused to approve a change of solicitor following a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship shortly before trial.

The court considered whether the accused had been denied Legal Aid through his own conduct, whether he had exhausted available means to retain private counsel, and whether counsel was necessary for a fair trial.

The court found the accused had limited financial means, had attempted to retain counsel, and was not solely responsible for the breakdown with prior counsel.

Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking charges, the likelihood of imprisonment upon conviction, and the legal and evidentiary complexity including Charter issues and a jury trial, representation by counsel was necessary.

A conditional stay of proceedings was therefore granted until state-funded counsel is provided.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking relating to approximately 10 kg of heroin hidden in carpets imported from Pakistan.

The court applied the Shephard test and the Arcuri framework for circumstantial evidence.

Olufeko and Onaola consented to committal on all counts.

Ajiri was discharged on importing and conspiracy to import counts but committed on possession counts.

Fanikayode contested committal on all three counts.

The court committed Fanikayode to trial, finding sufficient evidence that he conducted counter-surveillance at the cargo terminal and storage facility, from which a jury could infer his membership in the conspiracy and knowledge of the controlled drug shipment.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s order releasing the accused on bail for an attempted murder charge arising from a gang-related shooting.

The Crown argued that detention was required on the secondary and tertiary grounds and that the release decision was clearly inappropriate.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in St‑Cloud governing bail reviews under ss. 520 and 521, the court held that intervention is warranted only for legal error, a clearly inappropriate decision, or material new evidence.

The reviewing judge concluded that the justice of the peace committed no legal error and that the balancing of factors under s. 515(10)(b) and (c) was not clearly inappropriate, particularly given the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case.

The Crown’s bail review application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of carrying a loaded handgun in downtown Toronto.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of three years.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts as mitigating factors, and the carrying of a loaded weapon in public and breaches of bail as aggravating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to four years' imprisonment and declined to make a DNA order.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to three counts of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing theft, possession of stolen property under $5000, and public mischief.

The offences involved multiple residential break-ins, including one committed while the offender was bound by recognizance and probation conditions and where the dwelling was occupied at the time.

The court emphasized the serious violation of the sanctity of the home and the aggravating factor under s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code when a dwelling is occupied.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with mitigating factors including lack of prior record, remorse, and supportive family circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender received concurrent nine‑month custodial terms followed by probation with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of OxyContin tablets contrary to section 344(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the accused possessed a holdup note demanding 80 mg OxyContin tablets, was observed loitering in the pharmacy area of a Shoppers Drug Mart, and allegedly displayed a knife.

The trial judge found that the accused did not possess a knife, rejected the theory that he was associated with another individual in the store, and determined that while the accused may have once contemplated robbing a drug store, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to rob this particular store on this particular date.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown had not proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.