Emile Carrington

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a range of 12 to 15 months' imprisonment consecutive to a sentence the accused was already serving.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage, the mitigating factor of his guilty plea, and the harsh effects of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to his current sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a forfeiture order.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The Crown's case was wholly circumstantial, relying on evidence of animus, opportunity, means, and post-offence conduct.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, engaging in a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence to determine if reasonable inferences of guilt could be drawn.

The court concluded that the cumulative evidence could support a reasonable inference that the applicant was the shooter, and dismissed the application.

The offender, a 20-year-old first-time offender at the time of the offences, was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent following a home invasion.

During the robbery, the victim was shot in the back with a shotgun by a co-accused and suffered grievous injuries.

The Crown sought 9-10 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but considered the offender's youth and the principle of parity with a co-accused who received 8 years.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years concurrent on each count, less 554 days of pre-sentence credit, including enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The two accused were convicted of possessing loaded handguns, marijuana, and proceeds of crime.

One accused was also convicted of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought sentences of 4 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought much lower sentences, citing a Charter breach for delayed bail hearings.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of guns and drugs against the mitigating factors of good rehabilitation prospects and the Charter breach.

Both accused were sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by probation.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.