Fergus O'Donnell

The accused was charged with two counts of domestic violence against his wife: an assault in 2021 and an assault with a weapon (a beer can) in 2024.

The trial was primarily a credibility contest between the accused and the complainant, with both providing plausible but conflicting accounts of the incidents.

Applying the framework for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt, the court found that the Crown failed to prove its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

Sentencing for two counts of possession of child pornography by a young first offender who had uploaded or made accessible some material and who possessed accessible stills and videos depicting severe abuse of children.

The court held that, despite the objective seriousness of child pornography offences and the dominant role of denunciation and deterrence, a conditional sentence remained legally available where the offence was not statutorily excluded and individualized proportionality supported it.

Relying on the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, unusual immigration and pandemic-related isolation, positive antecedents, counselling, and low assessed risk of reoffending, the court concluded that real jail would be disproportionate and injurious to public safety.

A fifteen-month conditional sentence with house arrest, curfew, electronic monitoring, counselling, and community service was imposed.

The accused was tried on an allegation of operating or having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug after being found twice the same evening asleep or unresponsive in a parked vehicle with the engine running.

The Crown relied heavily on a drug recognition expert opinion and urinalysis results engaging the presumptions in s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted much of the accused's evidence regarding anxiety, physical limitations, fatigue, and earlier drug use, and found significant frailties in the DRE evidence, including the absence of video, inconsistent handling of personal characteristics, and ambiguous test indicators.

Applying W.(D.), the court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either impairment of the ability to operate a conveyance or that any impairment was caused by alcohol or a drug.

The accused was acquitted.

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 accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess blood alcohol, and obstructing police after a brief pursuit and physical struggle during his arrest.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging excessive use of force and denial of access to counsel of choice.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the police use of force was justified and the accused was given reasonable options to contact counsel.

The accused was found guilty of obstructing police and driving with excess blood alcohol, but not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

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.