Derek Sederoff

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fentanyl trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl and the quantity involved, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, youth, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism (Morris factors).

The lengthy period under restrictive bail conditions was also a substantial mitigating factor.

Despite the strong mitigating circumstances, the court determined that the severity of the offences, particularly fentanyl trafficking, necessitated a penitentiary sentence to uphold principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate.

The court imposed a sentence of 29 months, reduced to 28 months and 19 days after credit for pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences for the trafficking counts.

The accused pled guilty to manslaughter after providing a substance he believed to be cocaine to the victim, who died from ingesting U-47700, a synthetic opioid.

The accused, along with another individual, also ingested the substance and survived.

The accused failed to call emergency services when the victim was found unresponsive, instead calling for a ride.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the fact that he believed he was supplying cocaine rather than a deadly synthetic opioid.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking orders to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery examinations.

The underlying dispute involved an alleged unpaid settlement amount, with the plaintiff claiming negligence and conversion of funds by the defendants, who relied on a disputed promissory note and authorization.

The court largely granted the plaintiff's requests, ordering disclosure of communications between the defendants, payment receipts, original emails for metadata, and Law Society files related to one defendant's retainer.

Additionally, one defendant was ordered to produce tax returns for three years preceding 2014 and documentation of his location when sending key documents.

The court denied the request for one defendant's U.S. financial statements and income tax returns, finding them irrelevant.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The trial judge heard Charter and voluntariness voir dires on a blended basis.

The defence alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, ultimately proceeding only with the section 10(b) right to counsel argument.

The defence also challenged the voluntariness of statements made to police.

The trial judge found that all statements were voluntary but that the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) was violated because police failed to wait a reasonable time for the defendant's second counsel of choice to call back before proceeding with breath testing.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 255(2) of the Criminal Code.

The offence occurred when the accused, with a blood alcohol level of 140 mg/100 mL, rear-ended a pizza delivery driver's parked vehicle, causing the victim to suffer severe injuries including traumatic lacerations to internal organs, broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a hemothorax.

The victim required multiple surgeries and blood transfusions, and suffered significant ongoing physical, psychological, and financial consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment, balancing the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation against the accused's youth, good character, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and guilty plea.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether evidence of a failed approved screening device test, without evidence of device calibration, was sufficient to justify an arrest.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the failed screening device result, even absent explicit testimony regarding calibration.

The court distinguished between cases where the device's functioning was "on the table" due to contradictory evidence and cases where the evidence was silent on the issue.

The accused was found guilty.