Gavin Holder

The Crown and the accused brought several pretrial applications in a criminal proceeding involving an alleged acid attack.

The court ruled the accused's statement to police was voluntary and admitted certain discreditable conduct evidence.

However, the court found violations of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights during police transport and a violation of s. 503(1) of the Criminal Code (and ss. 9/10(c) of the Charter) for unreasonable delay in bringing the accused before a justice.

Consequently, statements made during transport and the audio-video recorded statement at the station were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused's Garofoli and other Charter applications were dismissed.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from trafficking, unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and attempted procurement arising from the exploitation of vulnerable sex trade workers.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives, emphasized extreme coercion, control, violence, addiction-related vulnerability, and degrading treatment of the principal victim, and applied the Tang and Lopez sentencing considerations for trafficking offences.

The court accepted Summers credit for pre-sentence custody and granted a reduced Duncan credit for harsh remand conditions and repeated lockdowns, while declining to credit all lockdown days on a one-to-one basis.

A global penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by 1740 days of credit, leaving a net sentence of 450 days from the date of sentence, together with ancillary DNA, firearms, and non-communication orders.

This is a youth sentencing decision for a young person, R.R., who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and robbery while using a firearm.

The offences involved two carjackings, the abduction and shooting of one victim, and the brandishing of a firearm in a second incident.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the gravity of the offences, R.R.'s prior youth record involving firearms, and his being on probation and a firearms prohibition at the time.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, pre-trial custody (441 days, including during the COVID-19 pandemic), educational courses taken in detention, strong family support, and expressed remorse.

The court addressed the issue of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody in the youth context, noting differences from adult sentencing.

The judge emphasized specific deterrence and public protection, finding that R.R. posed a high risk to public safety despite family support.

A further custodial sentence was deemed necessary for rehabilitation and reintegration.

The defendant, charged with possession of cocaine and heroin mixed with Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked credible grounds for the vehicle search, leading to a breach of the defendant's section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel was breached due to a significant delay in facilitating access to a lawyer and the officer's repeated elicitation of incriminating information after the right was invoked.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that all physical evidence (drugs) and utterances made by the defendant should be excluded from the trial.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and firearms offences following the shooting death of his girlfriend and his own attempted suicide, applied for bail.

The applicant had a history of breaching bail conditions, including no-contact orders with the deceased.

Due to his severe medical condition resulting from the suicide attempt, primary and secondary ground concerns were somewhat mitigated, though the proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable.

The court denied bail primarily on the tertiary grounds, finding that the Crown's case was overwhelming, the offences were grave, and the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders meant his release would shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with a defaced serial number hidden in his vehicle, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6.5 years, arguing the offence was at the 'true crime' end of the spectrum.

The court disagreed, finding no evidence the firearm was possessed for drug trafficking, and imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years.

The court granted enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in a sentence of time served.

The offender's vehicle was ordered forfeited as offence-related property.

The applicant brought a motion under section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence (a firearm) found in his vehicle, arguing that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle and the subsequent search warrant were unlawful.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to seize the vehicle without a warrant under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a recent shooting and was believed to contain trace evidence.

Alternatively, the seizure was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act due to improper license plates.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Garofoli challenge, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the issuing justice could still have granted the search warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The firearm used in the shooting was later found hidden in the dashboard of the accused's vehicle.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his use of the vehicle around the time of the shooting, and a fabricated report to police that the vehicle had been stolen.

The court found the accused guilty of the firearms possession charges, concluding he had constructive possession and knowledge of the firearm hidden in his vehicle.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the attempted murder charges, finding a reasonable inference that someone else may have been driving the vehicle at the time of the shooting.

Trevon Williams was found guilty of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, breach of probation, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered aggravating factors including the possession of a concealed, loaded handgun in public (including a high school), a prior criminal history involving violence, and the fact that the offender was on probation and subject to weapons prohibition orders at the time of the offences.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth (18 at the time of the offences) and the efficient conduct of the trial by the defence.

The court also considered the offender's cultural background as an African Canadian and individual of Aboriginal ancestry, noting the lack of a Gladue report but acknowledging the systemic issues.

The defence sought a sentence of time served, while the Crown sought a 6-year penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years, consisting of 4 years for firearm possession (including 34.5 months presentence custody credit), 6 months consecutive for breach of weapons prohibition, and 3 months concurrent for breach of probation.

The court also ordered forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition, lifetime weapons prohibition orders, and a DNA order.

The offenders, Romario Brissett and Devar Francis, were convicted by a jury of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution and exercising control over a minor for prostitution.

The Crown sought sentences of 2.5 years concurrent with 5 years for both.

The offenders sought 5 months consecutive or time served.

The court rejected the application of new mandatory minimums not in effect at the time of the offence and declined to apply the reasoning from R. v. Jackson regarding systemic racism for African-Canadian offenders due to lack of direct connection to the offenders' circumstances.

The court also rejected the argument for reduced sentences based on immigration consequences, finding the proposed sentences disproportionate.

Romario Brissett was sentenced to four years' incarceration, and Devar Francis was sentenced to three years' incarceration, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was arrested for possession of a loaded restricted firearm following a high-risk takedown where he was tasered by police.

The arrest was based on a confidential informant's tip and police surveillance.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications alleging arbitrary arrest, excessive force, unlawful search, and breaches of his rights to be informed of the reasons for arrest and to counsel.

The court found that the arrest was lawful and the force used was reasonable, but concluded that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights by delaying the communication of the reasons for arrest and the right to counsel, and by questioning him before he could consult a lawyer.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the breaches did not cause the seizure and the evidence was essential to the prosecution.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with robbery following a home invasion where three individuals stole electronics and a wallet.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically a single partial fingerprint found on a solarium door frame that matched the accused.

None of the victims or co-accused could identify the accused.

Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused left the fingerprint during the robbery, as there were other plausible explanations for its presence.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after the complainant awoke to find him naked and on top of her following an evening of heavy drinking and marijuana use.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to her intoxication and inconsistencies in her testimony.

The court found the complainant credible despite memory fragmentation, noting her core account of the assault remained consistent.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, charged with robbery, brought a motion to exclude his videotaped statement to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) and s. 7 Charter rights.

Although the accused spoke briefly with Duty Counsel, he expressed confusion during the subsequent police interview and indicated he wanted to speak to a lawyer of his own choosing.

The interviewing officer interrupted the accused's attempt to find a lawyer in the phone book and continued questioning him.

The court found that the officer failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel, resulting in a serious breach of s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Four accused were jointly charged with offences relating to a loaded firearm discovered in a vehicle in which they were occupants.

Two accused faced additional counts of transporting, possessing, and controlling the firearm and related ammunition offences.

After the Crown closed its case, all accused sought directed verdicts of acquittal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish a prima facie case of knowledge or control of the firearm.

The court held that mere presence in a vehicle containing a firearm, coupled with nervous behaviour and seat movements, was insufficient to establish knowledge or control beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where another unidentified occupant fled the vehicle from the seat where the firearm was located.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence could not permit a properly instructed jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court granted directed verdicts and acquitted all accused.