Erin Maureen McNamara

The young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault after grabbing a stranger's buttock on a streetcar.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed an Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP) given the offender's significant mental health challenges and positive response to structure.

However, evidence established a waitlist of up to a year for ISSP availability.

The court found that while the delay was unsatisfactory and undermined the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, custody would be disproportionate.

The court imposed a two-year probation order, requiring the young person to participate in an ISSP for 18 months once a placement becomes available.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and indecent act.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, likely permanently, due to schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly due to ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviour and the risk of decompensation if medication is not supervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with discretionary privileges.

This decision addresses multiple Charter breaches arising from the detention, search, and arrest of Omar Yaqubi in Toronto's Entertainment District.

The court found breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention without reasonable suspicion, unlawful search without safety justification, and failure to promptly inform and facilitate the right to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence obtained during the unlawful detention and search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Alternatively, a stay of proceedings was directed due to the loss of critical evidence caused by police muting body-worn cameras and failure to preserve key witness information, impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The applicant, Michael Francis, brought a motion for severance from his co-accused, Diane Campbell, in a joint criminal proceeding.

Francis, who had been in custody since February 2024, argued that significant prejudice would result from delays caused by Campbell's failure to secure legal representation.

The Crown and Campbell opposed the severance, citing concerns about inconsistent verdicts and the compellability of Campbell as a witness.

The court, applying the factors for severance outlined in R. v. Last, found that the prejudice to Francis, particularly his prolonged detention, outweighed the potential prejudice to the Crown and Campbell or the administration of justice.

The motion for severance was granted.

Three young persons, aged 15 at the time of offences, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and sexual assault with a weapon arising from locker room incidents at an elite private school in fall 2018.

One of the three also pleaded guilty to making child pornography.

The court imposed community-based sentences of two years probation with conditions, 30 hours community service, and weapons prohibitions.

The sentencing decision extensively examined the school's bullying and hazing culture as contextual factors, the diminished moral culpability of youth, and the rehabilitative potential of the offenders.

The court rejected the Crown's request for custody, finding that community dispositions with targeted therapeutic interventions were appropriate.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to call a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to give opinion evidence regarding the accused's impairment.

The court ruled that no formal voir dire under the Mohan test is required for DRE evidence.

The officer's opinion is admissible under s. 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code provided the officer is certified as required by regulation.

The opinion must be limited to the prescribed evaluation tests and procedures, or alternatively may be admitted as lay opinion evidence under the compendious statement of facts exception.