Fiona McNestry

The Ontario Review Board held an early hearing regarding the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual offences.

The hospital requested the hearing due to the accused's declining physical health from metastatic lung cancer, which caused a major neurocognitive disorder.

The Board found the accused permanently unfit to stand trial and concluded he does not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board recommended the Court hold an inquiry to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review of his disposition.

The hospital and all parties recommended an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused's schizophrenia is stable, his substance use disorder is in full remission, and he has excellent insight and community support.

Applying the Winko test, the Board concluded the accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety and ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community and was compliant with his medication.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a conditional discharge, noting that he is early in his forensic care and needs to be tested in the community.

A dissenting minority would have granted an absolute discharge, finding no evidence of a significant threat.

Hanad Abdirizak Ahmed pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking fentanyl.

The court considered an Enhanced Presentence Report (EPSR) detailing the impact of anti-Black racism on the offender.

Aggravating factors included the gravity of fentanyl trafficking, the quantity involved (10.77 grams), and the repeated, profit-motivated "dial-a-dope" nature of the conduct.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, struggles with addiction, strong family and community support, positive rehabilitative steps, and experience with anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought a three-year concurrent sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the deadly nature of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The defendant, Cody Moreau, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of Gladue principles.

The court found the Gladue principles inapplicable due to insufficient objective evidence of Indigenous ancestry or connection to an Indigenous community.

The offence involved extreme violence, a two-on-one attack, and stomping on a helpless victim, resulting in severe head injury.

Moreau had a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm and was on probation at the time.

Despite mitigating factors such as a difficult upbringing, substance abuse issues, and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police found two loaded handguns in satchels in the back seat of a rented vehicle they were occupying.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and DNA profiles linking the accused to the firearms.

The court acquitted one accused entirely, finding reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge and control of the firearms.

The other accused was acquitted of charges relating to one firearm due to the possibility of indirect DNA transfer, but convicted of possession of the second firearm.

The court also held that the second firearm, which was inoperable but easily repairable, met the definition of a firearm for simple possession but not for possession in a motor vehicle or possession of a loaded firearm.

Sentencing for multiple guilty pleas arising from the exploitation of two young complainants in the sex trade, including human trafficking, deriving a material benefit, advertising sexual services, assault causing bodily harm, and assault.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society were the primary sentencing objectives, while still giving some weight to youth, lack of record, guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

Applying the prevailing human trafficking range and the Tang-Lopez aggravating factors, the court found a fit global sentence of 8.5 years absent custodial conditions.

Because the offender endured exceptionally harsh and inhumane pre-sentence detention conditions, the sentence was reduced to 7 years and 3 months, with Summers credit leaving 23 months and 14 days to serve, together with ancillary orders and restitution.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Jayson Pothier, an Indigenous offender who pleaded guilty to serious charges including robbery, break and enter, and theft.

The court applied Gladue principles, considering the offender's extensive criminal record, which included prior penitentiary sentences for similar offences, alongside his profound history of childhood trauma and addiction.

The judge emphasized the systemic factors contributing to Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system and the need for a restorative approach.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional sentence, focusing on the offender's commitment to recovery and the availability of community supports, rather than a further period of incarceration.

The appellant appealed convictions for four counts of sexual assault and one count of assault against his wife.

The appeal argued errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainant, rejection of the appellant's evidence, and use of cross-count similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on credibility and the admissibility of similar act evidence to show a pattern of abusive conduct.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and two counts of assault against his wife.

The complainant alleged the offences occurred on New Year's Eve 2017 but did not report them to police until October 2018, during a marital separation and concurrent family court proceedings for sole custody of their child.

The court found the timing and circumstances of the disclosure, along with inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, provided a powerful motive to fabricate and raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

This is a detention review application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant, previously detained on tertiary grounds, sought release arguing errors of law by the Justice of the Peace and material changes in circumstances, including a new electronic monitoring plan and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no error of law but agreed that the new monitoring system and the pandemic constituted material changes.

Applying s. 515(10) criteria, the court found detention was not required on secondary grounds due to the applicant's lack of criminal record and stable employment, and that the proposed restrictive conditions and electronic monitoring would manage public safety risks.

While the tertiary grounds initially weighed heavily for detention given the serious charges and strong Crown case, the court balanced these with the improved release plan, the general vulnerability of inmates to COVID-19, and trial delays.

Ultimately, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the applicant's release on a substantial recognizance with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The accused, who suffered from bipolar disorder, PTSD, severe depression and anxiety, was living in her car with her therapy dog when stopped by police.

The court found that while the arrest was lawful and the breath demand was made as soon as practicable, there was a breach of the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel.

Police failed to exercise adequate diligence in contacting the accused's counsel of choice and did not offer her the option of speaking to alternative counsel when her preferred lawyer was unavailable.

The evidence was excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.