Elizabeth Jackson

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order following a shootout in a café.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging that correctional staff improperly disseminated the offender's disclosure to other inmates, finding insufficient evidence.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 7 years imprisonment, but deducted 18 months to account for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

After applying Summers credit for time served, the remaining sentence was 23 months.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm after fatally shooting the victim in a restaurant.

The court rejected the offender's claim that he acted in self-defence, finding his belief that the victim posed a threat was unreasonable and unfounded.

Balancing the aggravating factor of using an illegal handgun in a public place against the offender's lack of a prior record and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 12 years, along with a concurrent five-year sentence for the firearms offence.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and firearms offences arising from a shootout at a restaurant, the court ruled on the admissibility of the criminal records and police occurrence reports of one of the co-accused, the deceased, and the other co-accused.

The court excluded the co-accused's criminal record, finding its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its limited probative value regarding credibility and self-defence.

The court admitted the deceased's criminal record and related occurrence reports, as they were relevant to the accused's claim of self-defence and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court excluded double hearsay occurrence reports and unproven police synopses relating to the accused.

The court sentenced Ibrahim Khiar for manslaughter and aggravated assault after he fired eight shots at Marcel Teme, killing him, and injuring three bystanders.

The Crown sought a life sentence or, alternatively, 20 years’ incarceration with delayed parole eligibility.

The defence sought 15 years.

The court imposed 18 years, to be served concurrently with a prior sentence, and declined to delay parole eligibility.

The decision reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic racism, and relevant case law on sentencing for manslaughter with a firearm.

On a pre-trial severance application, one accused sought a separate jury trial from a co-accused arising out of a fatal restaurant shooting captured on surveillance video.

The moving party argued antagonistic self-defence positions, lack of nexus between counts, general prejudice, and impairment of full answer and defence because the co-accused would not be compellable on a joint indictment.

Applying the co-accused severance factors and the two-step inquiry for severance sought to compel a co-accused witness, the court held there was no evidentiary foundation showing a reasonable possibility that the proposed testimony would affect the verdict favourably.

Because the evidence against both accused was virtually identical, a joint trial better served truth-seeking, efficiency, and witness interests, and the application was dismissed.

Joseph Kovacs, convicted of five counts of violence, brought a post-conviction application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay minimally exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown successfully argued that a 35-day jury blackout period due to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance, which, when deducted, brought the delay below the ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate that the remaining delay was unreasonable, as they did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or put the court on timely notice of s. 11(b) concerns.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, Ricardo Charleston, brought an application to exclude evidence, including statements made to police and observations of the complainant's injuries, alleging violations of his Charter rights (sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2)) and involuntariness of statements.

The court found that police failed to inform Mr. Charleston of his right to counsel and the reason for his detention at multiple points, and conducted a warrantless search of his residence that was not justified by exigent circumstances due to delays and available alternatives.

Consequently, all statements made by Mr. Charleston after he was detained (10:38 pm) and the police observations of the complainant's injuries from the warrantless search were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, statements made before his detention (before 9:07 pm) were found voluntary and admissible, and the complainant remains able to testify about her own injuries.

The accused, Osman, applied for a directed verdict on a charge of accessory after the fact to murder.

Osman had assisted the principal offender in escaping after a shooting, but the victim did not die until three days later.

The Crown conceded the accused could not be convicted of the charged offence since the victim was alive at the time of assistance, but argued for a conviction on the included offence of accessory after the fact to attempt murder.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that accessory after the fact to attempt murder is not an included offence under s. 662(1) and cannot be applied via s. 660 in these circumstances.

The application was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault and weapons offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a total delay of nearly 24 months.

The Crown argued that a six-month deduction should be applied due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The court found that the primary cause of the delay was the Crown's failure to provide essential disclosure, specifically CCTV footage, for over a year.

The court held that the Crown failed to establish a causal link between the pandemic and the delayed disclosure.

As the delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling without justification, the application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

This is a ruling on stage one of a third-party records application brought by the defence in a criminal proceeding.

The accused sought records from the Toronto Police Service's Professional Standards Unit concerning an investigation into the unauthorized public release of an in-car camera video of the accused.

The court found that the defence discharged its onus on stage one, establishing that the records were likely relevant to issues at trial, including potential animus of arresting officers and the evidentiary foundation for a Charter application.

The court ordered the records to be produced for judicial review to determine stage two of the application.

The Crown and the accused brought six pre-trial motions relating to a joint trial for murder and accessory after the fact.

During the hearing, the accused Osman failed to appear, and the court found he had absconded under s. 475 of the Criminal Code, allowing the motions to proceed in his absence.

The court granted a consent order protecting the identities of three victim witnesses.

The court ruled that evidence of the accused's after-the-fact conduct, including flight and a subsequent meeting, was admissible for limited purposes.

Osman's s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was reasonably mitigated by the Crown.

Khiar's s. 8 Charter application to exclude video surveillance obtained from his condominium's property manager without a warrant was dismissed, as he had a low expectation of privacy in the common areas.

Finally, the court admitted the expert opinion evidence of a forensic video analyst, subject to limitations on tracking and comparing clothing characteristics.

The accused was found guilty of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The accused, a repeat offender with a prior firearms conviction, was carrying a loaded handgun in a backpack.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of carrying a loaded firearm in public and the accused's prior record against mitigating factors, including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Daquon Dawkins, was charged with unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The trial involved a voir dire challenging the validity of search warrants obtained based on confidential informant information, applying the Garofoli "Step 6" procedure and Debot criteria.

The court upheld the warrants, finding the information to obtain (ITO) provided sufficient grounds and full, fair, and frank disclosure.

The central issue at trial was whether Dawkins had knowledge of the handgun found in a backpack he was carrying.

The court rejected Dawkins' exculpatory testimony as incredible and found him guilty of all charges, concluding that his knowledge of the firearm was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and common sense inferences.

The accused Osman, charged as an accessory after the fact to murder, brought a pre-trial motion for severance from his co-accused, who was charged with second-degree murder.

Osman argued that severance was necessary to preserve his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as he was ready for a judge-alone trial while his co-accused insisted on a jury trial, which was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the motion premature, noting that the Crown had not yet sought consent for a judge-alone trial and further case management was required.

The motion was adjourned with specific case management orders made to expedite the proceedings.

This is a bail review application by Ajmain Rahman, who is charged with attempt murder and firearms offences.

The applicant sought release based on an enhanced supervision plan and the material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including his moderate asthma.

The court reviewed the original bail decision and a previous bail review, noting the applicant's history of non-compliance and the parents' past inability to supervise.

While acknowledging COVID-19 as a material change, the court found it insufficient to outweigh the deficiencies in the supervision plan, the serious nature of the offences, the strong Crown's case (bolstered by DNA evidence), and the applicant's non-compliant history.

The application for release was dismissed on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

D.D. applied for a bail review, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and trial delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that D.D. failed to satisfy the secondary and tertiary grounds for release.

The decision highlighted D.D.'s extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court concluded that the pandemic, while a relevant factor, did not outweigh the significant risk of reoffending and the necessity to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder, applied for bail.

The Crown alleged the applicant acted as the getaway driver for the suspected shooter.

The applicant proposed a release plan involving house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by his father and sister.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed sureties inadequate given the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions.

The court ordered detention on both the secondary ground (substantial likelihood of reoffending) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondent on a charge of first degree murder.

The respondent was present during an armed robbery and shooting at a restaurant but did not directly participate in the robbery or the killing, though he did briefly assault one of the victims.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence to commit the respondent for murder under either party liability or constructive murder provisions.

The application was dismissed.

In a trial for second-degree murder, the accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude or edit a video recording of the killing, arguing the graphic images would inflame the jury.

The Crown voluntarily edited the video to conceal the pooling of blood and the gunshot wound to the deceased's head.

The court ruled the edited video recording was admissible, finding its probative value in showing the factual circumstances of the murder substantially outweighed any potential prejudice to the accused.

The applicant sought a bail review based on a claimed material change in circumstances, proposing new sureties and electronic monitoring.

The applicant faces serious firearms trafficking and drug charges, with trials scheduled imminently.

The court found the proposed supervision plan inadequate, noting the reluctance of a former surety and the new surety's reservations about bail conditions.

The court concluded that detention was necessary on both secondary (protection of the public due to substantial likelihood of committing further offences) and tertiary (maintain confidence in the administration of justice) grounds, considering the gravity of the offences, the apparent strength of the Crown's case, and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.

The application for bail review was dismissed.