Dragi Zekavica

The applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging police facilitated criminal acts.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding it relied on facts not in evidence and mischaracterized the interaction between a confidential source and police.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to investigate and there was no evidence that they induced the applicant, who admitted to already being a drug dealer, to commit the offence.

The applicant, having been convicted of drug trafficking offences, brought an application to re-open his trial prior to sentencing based on fresh evidence.

The applicant discovered that the police source handler involved in the search warrant had received a negative judicial credibility assessment in an unrelated case.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence and dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not bear on a decisive issue and would not have affected the result, as cross-examining the source handler on unrelated credibility findings would not have advanced the challenge to the search warrant.

The accused was convicted of eight offences including possession of multiple controlled substances (fentanyl, cocaine, ketamine, methamphetamine, and GHB) for the purpose of trafficking, assault of a peace officer with intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest, attempt to take a weapon from a peace officer, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the accused's prior criminal record including two previous P4P convictions, his Indigenous background without connection to Indigenous culture (no Gladue report requested), his history of substance addiction, employment, and partial rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, with four years for the P4P fentanyl index offence and one year consecutive for the assault of a peace officer, reduced by twelve months of combined Summers credit and Downes mitigation, resulting in four years remaining to serve.

The accused was charged with eight counts including human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking, procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, uttering threats, assault, and assault by choking.

The Crown alleged the accused violently trafficked the complainant into the sex trade over approximately three weeks in April-May 2023, controlling her movements, finances, and communications while directing her to provide sexual services at hotels across the GTA and Barrie.

The court found the complainant's core evidence credible and reliable, corroborated by hotel records, Uber records, bank records, surveillance footage, and cryptocurrency purchase records.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person the complainant knew as "Troubles" and that he recruited, transported, harboured, and exploited the complainant for the purpose of providing sexual services.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The court sentenced Jason Curnew for sexual assault against a contract employee, Ms. AS, whom he supervised.

The decision details the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles, including the totality principle.

The court imposed a five-year consecutive penitentiary sentence, with mandatory ancillary orders, after considering the impact on the victim, the abuse of authority, and the offender’s prior convictions.

This decision concerns the conviction of Stephen William Koritar on eight charges, including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, assault of a police officer with intent to prevent arrest, attempt to take a weapon from a police officer, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that Mr. Koritar had knowledge and control of the drugs found in the master bedroom and kitchen of a Toronto condominium, and rejected his evidence as not credible.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of constructive and joint possession, circumstantial evidence, and the application of the W.D. framework for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The court dismissed Stephen William Koritar’s Charter s. 7 application alleging excessive use of force by police during his arrest.

The decision reviews the evidence of both the applicant and four police officers, finding the officers’ testimony more credible and consistent than the applicant’s.

The court concludes that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances, given the applicant’s resistance and the officers’ safety concerns.

The court also addresses, in the alternative, the legal standards for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, finding neither remedy warranted.

The defendant, Jason Leslie Curnew, brought an application to stay proceedings for sexual assault under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 41 months.

The court dismissed the application, finding that after deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay was 865 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that defence counsel had not demonstrated a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, attributing significant periods of delay to counsel's unavailability and procedural failures.

The applicant, Joshua Belovari, sought to sever counts of dangerous driving and criminal harassment, which arose from two separate incidents about a month apart, into separate trials.

The Crown opposed the severance, indicating an intention to bring a similar fact application.

The court denied the severance application, finding that the interests of justice did not require it.

Despite a thin factual nexus, the unique manner of the alleged dangerous driving created a legal nexus supporting a similar fact application.

The court prioritized the societal interest in efficient proceedings and avoiding multiplicity, noting that a single judge-alone trial would mitigate prejudice and prevent inconsistent rulings on similar fact evidence.

The appellant, a nurse, was convicted by a jury of attempted murder of her 19-month-old daughter (E.) and her mother (I.F.) by administering insulin, and aggravated assault of E. The attempted murder of E. resulted in severe, permanent brain damage.

The appellant appealed both convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for the attempted murder of E. and the sentence appeal, finding the life sentence for E.'s attempted murder fit given the severe harm and breach of trust.

However, the Court allowed the appeal for the attempted murder of I.F. and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in jury instructions by not sufficiently distinguishing attempted murder from aiding suicide, particularly regarding the mens rea and causal link if I.F. had self-administered the insulin.

J.C. was found guilty after trial of two counts of sexual interference and one count of accessing child pornography.

The sexual assault counts were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen to increase sentences for child sexual offences, imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years in custody.

The judge considered aggravating factors such as the young age and vulnerability of the victims (his 2-year-old daughter and 9-year-old niece), the abuse of trust, and the location of the offences.

Mitigating factors included J.C.'s lack of criminal record, stable employment history, and community support.

The court also addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for accessing child pornography, finding it unconstitutional based on R. v. John.

Ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA registration, and various prohibitions were also imposed.

The defendant, Garrett Depippo, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with an illegal blood alcohol content.

The court addressed whether the roadside breath demand satisfied the "immediacy" requirement and if the defendant had a realistic opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found the immediacy requirement was met and there was no realistic opportunity for counsel at roadside, dismissing the Charter application.

The court then found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of evidence, including his own testimony and poor judgment.

Following a Supreme Court decision (R. v. Breault), the excess blood alcohol count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

J.C. was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference, one count of assault, and one count of accessing child pornography.

The court found J.C. guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference with respect to his two-year-old daughter (S.) and his nine-year-old niece (K.), and guilty of accessing child pornography.

J.C. was acquitted of assaulting his wife (A.A.), as the court found his actions were consistent with self-defence or defence of property.

The case involved detailed analysis of witness credibility, forensic evidence, and the legal distinction between possessing and accessing child pornography.

Sentencing decision involving multiple child luring, child pornography making, distribution, and possession-related conduct carried out through false social media identities over more than two years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, finding substantial aggravating factors including the youth and vulnerability of the victims, multiple victims, prolonged grooming, planning, deception, and a significant volume of child pornography.

Although the offender received mitigation for a guilty plea, limited prior record, family support, and some rehabilitative potential, the court found his lack of insight and untreated deviant sexual interests maintained a significant risk to children.

Applying totality, the court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, less three days’ pretrial custody credit, and ordered ancillary relief.

The defendant, charged with attempted murder and administering a noxious substance after allegedly injecting her mother, her daughter, and herself with insulin, brought an application to admit evidence of an alternate suspect.

She sought to introduce evidence suggesting her estranged husband committed the crimes.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed evidence lacked a sufficient connection to the crime and was largely speculative or reliant on inadmissible hearsay.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and two counts of possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence.

Police found an AR-15 assault rifle and a sawed-off Cooey rifle in an unsecured backpack in the hallway of the accused's apartment, where he lived with his common-law spouse and three-year-old daughter.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the presence of a child, and the defaced serial numbers as aggravating factors, while the guilty plea and the accused's rehabilitation prospects were mitigating.

The court determined a fit sentence was 4 years, reduced by 1 year for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19.

After applying Summers credit, the remaining 327 days were ordered to be served as a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced Vuk Peric after he pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, involving a total of 82.63 grams.

The offences occurred while he was on bail for prior drug-related charges.

The central issue was determining a proportionate sentence, considering the principle of totality with a previously imposed four-year sentence for other offences.

The court balanced aggravating factors, such as the nature and quantity of fentanyl, re-offending while on bail, and a significant criminal record, against mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, harsh pre-trial detention conditions during the pandemic, and his struggles with addiction and challenging personal background.

The court imposed concurrent four-year sentences for the current offences, to run consecutively to the prior sentence, resulting in a functional equivalent of an eight-year global sentence.

After pre-sentence credit, 14.5 months remained to be served.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and forcible confinement relating to four bank robberies.

The offender, a career criminal with a lengthy record including a conviction for murder in Thailand, used an imitation firearm and disguises during the carefully planned robberies.

The court applied the totality principle to reduce the cumulative sentence from 34 years to 21 years, resulting in a net sentence of 15 years, 6 months, and 10 days after enhanced credit for pre-trial custody and pandemic lockdowns.

The court declined the Crown's request to delay parole eligibility under s. 743.6.

The accused sought to exclude evidence seized during a search of their cannabis dispensary, Pharma-Cann, arguing the search warrant was invalid due to an inadequate description of the premises and violated their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the warrant adequately described the premises as Suite 117, despite it being subdivided into 117A and 117B, because police relied on public information and undercover observations that did not reveal the subdivision.

No s. 8 Charter breach was found.

Alternatively, if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the police conduct was not serious, deliberate, or in bad faith, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits outweighed the impact on Charter rights.

The accused were convicted of trafficking cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine, with some offences committed in association with the 'Ndrangheta criminal organization.

The Crown relied on evidence from a paid police agent who recorded conversations with the accused detailing plans to import large quantities of cocaine.

The court sentenced the first accused to 11.5 years and the second accused to 9 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale cocaine importation schemes.