Elliott Willschick

The accused, Beum Kim, was convicted after a judge-alone trial of aggravated assault, sexual assault with a weapon, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threatening death, extortion, and fraud under $5,000.

The offences involved the torture and sexual assault of the complainant over 33 hours.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the Defence proposed a 4-year global sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutality of the acts and reoffending while on bail, and mitigating factors, such as pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, less 6 months for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit, resulting in 8.5 years further custody.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, SOIRA registration for 20 years, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellant, Denise Henn, appealed a 12-month custodial sentence for fraud over $45,000.

The Court of Appeal found two errors in principle by the sentencing judge: erroneously treating lack of restitution as an aggravating factor and failing to consider relevant mitigating factors (diagnosed mental health issues and financial distress, not greed, as the cause of the fraud).

The appeal was allowed, and a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest and a standalone restitution order was imposed, followed by three years' probation.

The Court also found a fine in lieu of forfeiture inappropriate.

The applicant, charged with human trafficking and sexual assault offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained.

The applicant proposed a new surety who worked from home and could provide 24/7 supervision without internet access.

The court found this constituted a material change in circumstances that addressed the original bail judge's concerns regarding the secondary ground.

The court also found the original judge erred by violating the presumption of innocence in assuming the applicant would not follow conditions simply because he was charged with human trafficking.

The court concluded that a strict release plan with the new surety and a GPS monitor addressed both secondary and tertiary grounds, and ordered the applicant's release.

The offender, Shamar Sealy, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, theft under $5000, and two counts of assault simpliciter, involving minor victims.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of victims, recording of an assault, use of a prohibited weapon, and threats, alongside mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, lack of adult convictions, a gap in his record, and mental health/substance abuse issues that he has since addressed.

Applying sentencing principles, including the attenuated importance of deterrence and denunciation for mentally ill offenders, and considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conditions of imprisonment, the court determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, along with related offences.

The Crown relied on text messages found on the accused's phone, which were admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, to prove he was dealing drugs.

The court found that the drugs, located in a closet where the accused's cousin was hiding, were in the accused's constructive possession.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime, breach of probation, and possession of marijuana, but acquitted of weapons and ammunition charges.

The applicant was charged with 20 counts including dangerous driving, drug-impaired driving, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon.

The charges comprised two separate informations: the first laid in July 2017 relating to an incident on July 15, 2017, and the second laid in April 2018 relating to historic offences from 2016.

The charges were consolidated into a single information and tried together.

The applicant applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.

The court found that the net delay on the first set of charges exceeded the presumptive 18-month Jordan ceiling and granted a stay on those counts.

However, the court treated the second set of charges separately and found the delay was within the presumptive ceiling, dismissing the stay application for those counts.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, following a charge of uttering threats.

The applicant argued the detaining justice erred in law and presented new evidence, including the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on trial delays and detention conditions, and the subsequent withdrawal of a "fail to appear" charge.

The court found no errors in law by the detaining justice regarding reverse onus or public safety grounds.

While acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 and the withdrawn charge as new evidence, the court ultimately dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to present a particularized plan for release, which was crucial given his history of violence, harassment, and prior bail breaches.

The dismissal was without prejudice to a further application supported by an appropriate release plan.

The defendant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The defendant sustained a laceration to his head and bruising during a struggle after attempting to flee in his vehicle.

The court found that the defendant violently resisted arrest and weaponized his vehicle, and that the force used by the officers to subdue him was not unnecessary or excessive.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

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.

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 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.