Elliott Willschick

The offenders, Romario Brissett and Devar Francis, were convicted by a jury of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution and exercising control over a minor for prostitution.

The Crown sought sentences of 2.5 years concurrent with 5 years for both.

The offenders sought 5 months consecutive or time served.

The court rejected the application of new mandatory minimums not in effect at the time of the offence and declined to apply the reasoning from R. v. Jackson regarding systemic racism for African-Canadian offenders due to lack of direct connection to the offenders' circumstances.

The court also rejected the argument for reduced sentences based on immigration consequences, finding the proposed sentences disproportionate.

Romario Brissett was sentenced to four years' incarceration, and Devar Francis was sentenced to three years' incarceration, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, charged with arson and four counts of attempted murder, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The accused proposed a new plan of supervision involving 24/7 house arrest with two sureties, which constituted a material change in circumstances from his previous situation of living in a homeless shelter.

The court found the proposed plan mitigated the secondary ground concerns and that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The bail review was granted and the accused was released on strict conditions.

A young person was found guilty after trial of three firearm-related offences: possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a motor vehicle containing a prohibited firearm, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The offences arose from a single occurrence on September 23, 2016, involving a loaded Mossberg 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun found in a vehicle.

The Crown sought 6 to 9 months in custody followed by probation.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the offences met the "exceptional case" threshold under section 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is required to impose custody on a non-violent offence.

The court imposed a non-custodial sentence consisting of community service and probation, emphasizing the statutory prohibition against general deterrence in youth sentencing and the requirement to impose the least restrictive sentence capable of achieving rehabilitation.

A young person was charged with three firearm-related offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a motor vehicle knowing a prohibited weapon was present, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown's case relied on admissions by defence counsel regarding the accuracy of photographs, surveillance video, and police evidence.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the defendant's knowledge and control of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the defendant's exclusive control over the vehicle, his placement of the firearm in the car, and his post-offence conduct, compelled only one reasonable inference: that the defendant knew the loaded shotgun was in the vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The offender, a 26-year-old security guard with no prior record, was convicted of stealing 46 computers valued at $79,145 from a bank.

The Crown sought 6-8 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court noted the aggravating factor of breach of trust but emphasized the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and late expression of remorse.

Finding that incarceration would not serve a meaningful public purpose and that a conditional sentence was legally unavailable, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 3 years of probation, 250 hours of community service, and a full restitution order of $79,145.

This is a judicial interim release hearing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an 18-year-old accused charged with 14 counts including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and unlawful possession of explosives.

The accused had recently pleaded guilty to robbery and weapons offences and was placed on probation and a weapons prohibition order, but was arrested two weeks later with a homemade firearm, ammunition, and related materials in his bedroom.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus on both grounds, emphasizing the untested nature of the firearm, the accused's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts while in custody, and the strict supervision plan proposed by his sureties.

The accused, a cabinetmaker with over 20 years of business experience, was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 relating to contracts entered into between November 2012 and April 2013.

During a period of financial difficulty, the accused accepted deposits representing 50% of estimated project costs from multiple customers but used the deposits to pay personal debts rather than purchase materials for the work.

None of the projects were completed and customers lost their deposits.

The Crown alleged fraud; the defence claimed the accused honestly believed the work would be completed.

Count 1 was conceded by the Crown.

The court found the accused guilty on Count 2 (relating to a January 2013 contract with one customer) but not guilty on Count 3 (relating to a contract with another customer).

The defendant was charged with three offences—Robbery, Disguise with Intent, and Administer Noxious Substance—arising from a home invasion at a basement apartment on Dupont Street, Toronto on September 4, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on cell phone records placing the defendant in the area and evidence that he had rented the vehicle used by the perpetrators.

The defendant testified that he was merely providing transportation to acquaintances and was unaware of their criminal intentions.

Despite circumstantial evidence suggesting the defendant's involvement, including items found in the vehicle proximate to the driver's seat, the court found that a reasonable doubt had been raised regarding his participation in the robbery.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on charges of importing cocaine, trafficking oxycodone, and conspiring to import firearms.

The reviewing judge applied the deferential standard of review from St. Cloud, finding that the Justice of the Peace did not make any clearly inappropriate decisions in weighing the evidence, including wiretaps, flight risk, and the proposed release plan.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence from the applicant's ex-wife, as no due diligence was shown.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to remain in custody.

The defendant pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having taken $16,800 from his elderly father while holding a Power of Attorney.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 45-day intermittent sentence with three years probation and restitution, balancing the seriousness of the breach of trust against the defendant's rehabilitative potential and ability to continue making restitution payments.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample to a peace officer.

The Crown alleged the officer had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device (ASD) test, made the demand forthwith, and the accused refused to comply.

The defence argued the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the demand was not made forthwith, and the accused was unable to use the machine properly due to inadequate instruction and anxiety.

The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the accused coming from a licensed establishment, odour of alcohol, and red watery eyes.

The court found the forthwith requirement was met.

Most significantly, the court found the accused eventually refused to blow into the device, which constituted the offence.

The accused was convicted.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied bail on secondary grounds under s. 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code for impaired driving, driving over 80, and driving while disqualified.

The applicant argued that a materially different release plan existed, including three proposed sureties, house arrest, supervision at work, and alcohol counselling.

The court found the proposed plan largely replicated the earlier proposal and did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Given the applicant’s prior impaired driving record, outstanding charges, breach of a driving prohibition, and extremely high blood alcohol readings, the court concluded there remained a substantial likelihood of reoffending and risk to public safety.

The detention order was therefore maintained.