Fergus O'Donnell

The defendant pleaded guilty to disobeying a court order contrary to s. 127 of the Criminal Code, the order having been issued under Ontario's Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017.

The order prohibited contact with and proximity to the complainant.

The defendant approached the complainant at a casino, tapped her on the shoulder, spoke to her, smirked, and stood behind her for ten minutes.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and sought twelve months' imprisonment less pre-sentence custody.

The defence sought time served.

The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal record including multiple prior breach convictions, prior convictions for advertising sexual services and deriving material benefit therefrom, and a history of non-compliance with court orders.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and a traumatic upbringing.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant's decision to remain at the casino minimized the offence and found a sentencing leap rather than an incremental step was warranted given the defendant's persistent pattern of disregard for court orders.

The defendant, a long-haul truck driver with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to four counts of smuggling and possession of unstamped tobacco under the Customs Act and Excise Act.

Over approximately 16 months, the defendant participated in a smuggling scheme importing unstamped tobacco from the United States into Canada, with three shipments intercepted totaling approximately 45,000 kilograms and evading approximately $17.5 million in duties and taxes.

The defendant was recruited by individuals known as "Rav" and "Harb" and earned approximately $2,500 per load, with evidence suggesting approximately 12 loads successfully crossed the border undetected.

The defendant's twin brother was also involved in the scheme.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with stringent conditions including home confinement with electronic monitoring, limited exceptions for employment and necessities, 200 hours of community service, and restrictions on cross-border movement and contact with his brother, followed by one year of probation with an additional 100 hours of community service.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges: threatening a corrections officer, assault with a weapon against his domestic partner, and breach of a bail order not to possess weapons.

The Crown sought seven months custody plus three years probation.

The defendant sought ninety days intermittent custody plus probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation and ancillary orders, crediting fifty-four real days of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to eighty-one days.

The judgment reflects extensive consideration of the defendant's traumatic background, mental health issues, and systemic failures in the criminal justice system, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the failure of a police officer to specify the exact model number of an approved screening device (ASD) used to test blood alcohol content undermined reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court relied on precedent from R. v. Gundy to hold that the officer’s testimony that an approved device was used, absent credible contradictory evidence, suffices to establish reasonable grounds.

The Court also addressed whether the arrest was unlawful because it was made for impaired driving rather than excess blood alcohol, concluding the arrest was lawful given the totality of circumstances and the officer’s subjective belief.

Finally, the Court examined alleged breaches of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, finding no breach where the accused was promptly given access to duty counsel despite some problematic comments by the breath technician.

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Abdoulie Ceesay of criminal harassment charges related to alleged repeated communications and visits to his former girlfriend, Eunice Terry Mwara.

The court emphasized the high burden of proof on the Crown to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant evidentiary weaknesses including speculative identification of Mr. Ceesay’s car, conflicting accounts of communication frequency, and the absence of independent evidence supporting claims of prior assaultive behaviour.

The judge also considered Mr. Ceesay’s lawful authority to communicate in order to retrieve his debit card, which was in Ms. Mwara’s possession.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the elements of the offence, including reasonable fear and knowledge of harassment, leading to a not guilty verdict.

This decision concerns a Crown application under s. 111 of the Criminal Code to prohibit Clint Rogers, a licensed gun owner and gunsmith, from possessing firearms following two non-criminal incidents in 2024 involving mental health crises and self-harm concerns.

The court considered evidence from police, Mr. Rogers, and his wife, including medical letters and testimony about his mental health, substance use, and ongoing possession of firearms.

The judge emphasized the forward-looking nature of the test, the balance of probabilities standard, and the need to assess risk to self or others.

Despite the Crown's concerns, the court found insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Rogers's possession of firearms posed a danger, noting his longstanding responsible engagement with firearms and progress in counselling.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns a youth sentence review for N.M., who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

N.M. sought to convert the balance of his custodial term to community supervision, which the Crown opposed.

The court granted N.M.'s application, finding that he met the high standard required for early conditional supervision.

The judge emphasized N.M.'s significant rehabilitative progress, strong personal support network, and criticized the provincial government's handling of his transition from youth to adult correctional facilities, which hindered his rehabilitation.

The defendant, Keenan George, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his brother, Kegan, during an argument over household cleanliness.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years in penitentiary, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found the offence to be serious, driven by anger, and not mitigated by alcohol or drugs.

Considering the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 41 months imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody, deeming a conditional sentence inappropriate given the severity of the crime.

N.M., a young person convicted of second-degree murder, sought a variation of his youth sentence under s. 94 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, requesting release into the community.

The Crown sought to confirm the sentence.

The court reviewed N.M.'s progress and institutional conduct, noting significant issues with his placement in adult maximum security facilities post-sentence, which hindered his rehabilitation.

Despite these systemic failures and N.M.'s positive attitude, the court found that N.M. had not yet met the burden to justify a sentence variation.

The sentence was confirmed, but an earlier optional review was scheduled for June 2024, acknowledging N.M.'s progress and the system's shortcomings.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were found guilty after trial of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the serious nature of the drugs, the profit motive, the large quantities involved, and the fact that both were first offenders without drug dependence issues.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions (house arrest, curfew) was factored into the sentences.

Bennett was sentenced to a total of five years in penitentiary, and Griggs was sentenced to a total of eleven years in penitentiary.

Automatic weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and victim surcharges were also imposed, and seized cash and offence-related property were ordered forfeited.

Michael Sawicki pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for transmitting HSV-2 to two intimate partners without disclosure.

The offences occurred between 2016 and 2019, with one victim being a minor.

The court considered the long-term, debilitating impact on the victims and the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust.

Despite the defence seeking a non-custodial or conditional sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding that only a real jail sentence would adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the offender's moral culpability.

Sawicki was sentenced to ten months imprisonment, followed by two years of probation.

Margaret Park-Romain pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender's background, and sentencing principles, including the disparity between sentences for dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death.

The judge emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, imposing a three-year penitentiary sentence and a five-year driving prohibition, plus the period of imprisonment.

The defendant, K.B., a 27-year-old first offender with no criminal record and significant family caregiving responsibilities, was found guilty of sexual assault involving two sleeping victims, one with digital penetration.

The Crown sought six months of real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the individualized nature of sentencing for first offenders, determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate, capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence without requiring incarceration.

K.B. received a 12-month conditional sentence (9 months house arrest, 3 months curfew) followed by 18 months probation and community service.

Michael Smith pleaded guilty to causing damage by fire and possession of incendiary materials.

The Crown sought a six-month jail sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court, applying the principle of proportionality and considering the offender's moral responsibility, mental health, and substance abuse issues, determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The judge emphasized that a conditional sentence can have significant deterrent and denunciatory effects, and that incarceration is not always rehabilitative.

A 15-month conditional sentence with house arrest and probation was imposed.

Dolal Jama was sentenced for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a six-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the substantial amount of fentanyl, and the offender's criminal record, including prior drug convictions.

However, the court also gave significant weight to the offender's long-standing addiction, his persistent and successful efforts at rehabilitation, and his early guilty plea.

The judge emphasized the principle of proportionality, arguing against a rigid application of sentencing ranges for addict-traffickers.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of two years' incarceration, followed by two years' probation.

Brent Armitage pleaded guilty to failing to remain at a collision that resulted in death.

The Crown sought 18-24 months real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim's family, and the offender's background, including his genuine remorse and health issues (sleep apnea).

Applying the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 18 months probation, a 5-year driving prohibition, and other conditions, finding that a conditional sentence would better achieve the sentencing objectives than real jail given the specific circumstances.

The defendant, Jason Franco, was charged with impaired care and control of a conveyance and having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court found the defendant guilty of both charges based on observations of impairment and breath sample readings.

A significant portion of the judgment critiques the outdated judicial interpretation of the "notice" requirement for breath certificates under s. 320.32(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing that in the modern era of full disclosure, formal proof of service should no longer be required.

The judge emphasized that the law should adapt to current realities and not be treated as a "game of snakes and ladders" that benefits only those who can afford to exploit procedural shortcomings.

Matthew Mailhot was sentenced for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, along with other drugs, while in custody on a surety revocation.

He had a significant criminal record, including recent firearms convictions for which he was already serving a five-year sentence.

The Crown sought an eight-year consecutive sentence, while the defence sought a four-to-five-year concurrent sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, especially in a custodial setting, but also considered the offender's lamentable background and lifelong addiction as mitigating factors.

The judge rejected the Crown's interpretation of R. v. Ribble regarding the minimal relevance of addiction for commercial traffickers and reaffirmed proportionality as the cardinal principle of sentencing, which includes the offender's moral responsibility.

The court imposed a 3.5-year sentence, consecutive to the existing sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and victim surcharge.

The judge also recommended transfer to an Alberta institution to support rehabilitation.

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was found guilty after trial of robbery, aggravated assault, and extortion.

The Crown sought a real jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the availability of a conditional sentence, particularly in light of R. v. Sharma and the principle of horizontal stare decisis as clarified in R. v. Sullivan.

Following the precedent set in R. v. Forrestall, the judge concluded that a conditional sentence was an available option.

Considering the seriousness of the offences, their impact on the victim, and the offender's background and moral responsibility, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring and community service.

The defendant, Lauren McDiarmid, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through multiple warrantless police entries into her apartment, arguing violations of her s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that three warrantless entries by police officers were unreasonable, as the Crown failed to justify them under common law duties or statutory provisions.

Consequently, the information obtained from these unlawful entries was excised from the search warrant application, rendering the warrant invalid.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the cumulative seriousness of the violations and their impact on the defendant's privacy rights.

The evidence was therefore excluded from trial.