Elizabeth Jackson

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Crown brought a mid-trial motion to admit hearsay evidence from a co-accused, Jerome Bent, who refused to testify.

The accused, Shakeil Wheatle, was charged with first-degree murder.

The motion relied on the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring assessment of necessity and reliability.

The court found necessity was met due to Bent's refusal.

For reliability, the court distinguished between parts of Bent's statement that incriminated himself and were corroborated, which were deemed inherently trustworthy and admissible, and parts that incriminated Wheatle, which lacked sufficient trustworthiness and corroboration, and were therefore inadmissible.

The court emphasized the lack of opportunity for cross-examination and the circumstances of the statement (jailhouse discussion) as undermining procedural reliability for the parts incriminating Wheatle.

The applicant, Shakeil Wheatle, charged with two separate murders, brought a pre-trial motion seeking severance of the two murder counts.

The court granted the severance, finding no factual nexus between the two homicides, differing strengths in the Crown's case for each, and a significant risk of prejudice to the accused if the counts were tried together.

The decision emphasized the importance of avoiding impermissible inferences and the complexity of jury instructions in such circumstances.

Dellan McMorris was found guilty of first-degree murder in the 2012 killing of Delano Coombs.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the planned and deliberate murder, the profound impact on the victim's family, and the defendant's background, including his prior criminal record and efforts to complete high school while in custody.

The mandatory sentence for first-degree murder is life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and the societal abhorrence for gun violence.

The defendant, Dellan McMorris, brought a motion for a directed verdict in a first-degree murder trial, arguing insufficient evidence regarding his identity as a perpetrator.

The court reviewed the legal framework for directed verdicts, which requires determining if a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown, including telephone records, witness testimony, and DNA evidence on a discarded hoodie.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found that a reasonable jury could infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown applied to admit an edited audiorecording and transcript of a co-accused's (Jerome Bent) guilty plea to first-degree murder as substantive evidence in the defendant Dellan McMorris's trial.

Bent, who was expected to refuse to testify, had pleaded guilty to the murder of Delano Coombs.

The defence argued that a co-accused's plea is inadmissible except for credibility.

The court, applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, found the plea and edited portions of the agreed statement of facts to meet the threshold reliability and necessity requirements, allowing their admission as substantive evidence against McMorris, but only to prove Bent's culpability, not to directly implicate McMorris.

This ruling addresses a voir dire to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of a statement made by the defendant, Dellan McMorris, to police regarding his cell phone number.

The statement was obtained during a traffic stop where McMorris was a passenger.

The Crown sought to admit this statement in a murder trial.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary, alleging a police threat to charge McMorris with possession of a stolen vehicle if he did not cooperate, and also sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter for alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10.

The court found the police officers' notes incomplete and their testimony less reliable, while the defendant's testimony regarding the threat was sufficiently credible to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

Consequently, the statement was deemed inadmissible.

The court declined to rule on the Charter application.

This ruling addresses two applications concerning the admissibility of hearsay declarations by Jerome Bent in the murder trial of Dellan McMorris.

The defence sought to admit Bent's July 2012 declarations, asserting Bent was the principal shooter and McMorris merely present.

The Crown sought to admit Bent's April 2013 declarations, which implicated McMorris.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither set of declarations met the threshold reliability requirement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court highlighted issues with inconsistent statements, lack of contemporaneous recording, Graham's motivation and credibility, and the absence of independent confirmatory evidence directly implicating McMorris.