Forestell

The 17-year-old offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and aggravated assault following a series of gang-related shootings.

The Crown applied to have the young person sentenced as an adult.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the youth's cognitive limitations, mental health issues, substance abuse, and vulnerability to older criminal peers.

The court also found that a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold the offender accountable.

The young person was sentenced to the maximum youth sentence of seven years for second degree murder, comprising four years in secure custody and three years of community supervision.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking his friend in the head with a baseball bat during an altercation.

The court considered the offender's long history of alcohol abuse, remorse, and the exceptionally harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 5 years before credit, and after applying a 1.5:1 credit for 1,100 days of pre-sentence custody, imposed a sentence of 175 days to serve, plus 3 years of probation.

The court noted the sentence of less than 6 months preserves the offender's right to appeal his likely deportation.

The young person pleaded guilty to second degree murder for killing his mother.

Both the Crown and defence agreed to a seven-year Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) youth sentence.

The only issue was the amount of credit for 688 days of pre-sentence custody.

The court granted one year of credit, leaving three years to serve in custody and three years under conditional supervision, noting the young person's significant neurodevelopmental needs and the requirement for long-term treatment and support.

The 82-year-old accused was found guilty of manslaughter for the domestic homicide of his wife.

At the time of the offence, the accused was experiencing a major depressive episode and subsequently entered a catatonic state.

The court weighed the gravity of domestic homicide against the accused's age, mental illness, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the global pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 14 months and 26 days after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns, followed by 3 years of probation.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing the victim multiple times during a physical altercation over drugs.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the use of a knife and the drug context, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 9 months before credit, reducing it by 3 months for the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and granted enhanced credit for time spent in lockdown.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking a frail 61-year-old victim with a single punch, causing him to fall and suffer a fatal head injury.

The court weighed the offender's significant criminal record and the vulnerability of the victim against his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, granting 24 months of credit for pre-sentence custody, which included enhanced credit for harsh conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 5 years to serve.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the recent Criminal Code amendments that abolished peremptory challenges during jury selection.

The applicant relied on a recent decision by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction that found the amendments unconstitutional.

The court held that it was not bound by the prior decision and found it to be plainly wrong.

The court concluded that the elimination of peremptory challenges does not violate the right to a fair trial, an impartial jury, or the principles of fundamental justice, as other safeguards such as challenge for cause and the enhanced stand-aside power remain in place.

The application was dismissed and the legislation was upheld as constitutional.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following a police takedown of a taxi.

He brought pre-trial applications alleging that police used excessive force by striking him on the head with a firearm while he was compliant and face down on the ground, violating his rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court found serious credibility issues with the police officers' testimony and accepted the accused's version of events, supported by an independent witness.

Concluding that the police conduct contravened fundamental notions of justice and undermined the integrity of the judicial process, the court granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with firearm offences after being arrested during a police takedown of a target he was accompanying.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention and excessive use of force, supported by independent video evidence showing police kicking him while he was handcuffed on the ground.

The court found the detention was arbitrary as police lacked reasonable grounds, and excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt due to severe police credibility issues, resulting in an acquittal.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his residence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to deliberate misrepresentations and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the affiant deliberately misled the issuing justice regarding the confidential informant's criminal history, motivation, and the corroborative police observations.

After excising the inaccurate information, the court concluded that the remaining ITO was not sufficiently reliable to support the warrant, resulting in a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious nature of the police misconduct.

The accused applied to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence pursuant to a warrant obtained under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The warrant relied heavily on information from a confidential informant.

The court found the warrant invalid because the affiant failed to disclose the informant's monetary motivation, provided no details of past reliability, and relied on uncorroborated second-hand information to connect the residence to the drugs.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter-infringing conduct was serious and the impact on the accused's rights was significant, warranting the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault, arguing his guilty plea was not voluntary or informed.

He suffered from Ankylosing Spondylitis and was denied his necessary medication while in custody, causing extreme pain.

He was also threatened and assaulted by another inmate.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the combination of lack of medical care, extreme pain, and threats deprived the appellant of the ability to make a conscious volitional decision to plead guilty.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing the complainant, who was the husband of the accused's landlord.

The complainant confronted the accused over suspicions of an affair with his wife, leading to a physical altercation.

The accused testified that the complainant attacked him, held him by his shirt, and threatened to kill him, prompting the accused to use a knife to defend himself.

The court found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and accepted the accused's version of events.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Leon Alexander and Edmund Benjamin, were charged in relation to the stabbing deaths of Andy James and Brandon Ramdeen following a boat cruise.

The Crown alleged that Alexander stabbed James or was a party to the stabbing, and that both accused participated in a group assault on Ramdeen during which he was fatally stabbed by another individual.

The trial judge found that while Alexander assaulted James, he did not stab him and his actions were not a significant contributing cause of death.

The judge also found the identification evidence regarding the assault on Ramdeen to be unreliable.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of personal property bearing the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) insignia seized from the residences of individual members and the Toronto clubhouse, arguing it was offence-related property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The individual respondents had been convicted of various drug trafficking offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while membership in the HAMC facilitated the drug transactions by providing a trustworthy network, the physical items bearing the insignia were not used to commit the offences, nor was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were intended to be used for such purposes.

The offenders were sentenced following a jury trial where Bengy was convicted of second degree murder and Modeste was convicted of manslaughter in relation to the stabbing death of Brandon Ramdeen.

Bengy, who stabbed the unarmed victim while he was overpowered, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 11 years.

Modeste, who participated in the group assault but did not stab the victim, was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, with 49.5 months remaining after credit for pre-trial custody.