George Grant

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to make an initial disposition for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including break and enter and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, refused medication and exhibited persistent grandiose and persecutory delusions.

Applying the test for fitness to stand trial, the Board found the accused remained unfit as he could not understand the proceedings or meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board ordered a Detention Order with conditions, including a no-contact provision, prioritizing public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused has a history of schizoaffective disorder, substance use, and violence.

While he made recent progress in the hospital setting, he continues to lack insight into his illness and the impact of substance use.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention disposition was ordered as necessary and appropriate to manage his risk.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after police executed search warrants at a residence and on her vehicle, finding significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and cash.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession.

The court found that while there was a high suspicion of the accused's involvement in the trafficking operation, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had knowledge and control of the drugs, as other individuals had access to the residence and vehicle.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in the unprovoked shooting death of a random victim during an attempted robbery.

McDonald, convicted of second-degree murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment with 25 years of parole ineligibility, to be served consecutively to a previous life sentence for another murder.

Lako, convicted of manslaughter, was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

The court denied Lako's request for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit related to the COVID-19 pandemic, finding insufficient evidence of unique personal vulnerability or measurable impact beyond that experienced by the general public.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter and second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether the amendments in Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges (repeal of s. 634 of the Criminal Code) have retrospective effect.

The court held that the availability of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter, not a substantive right.

Therefore, the repeal applies retrospectively to all matters before the court as of the coming into force date, September 19, 2019.

The young person applied for an order directing the appointment of counsel under s. 25(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act after being denied Legal Aid.

The Crown had determined that Extrajudicial Sanctions were not available.

The court considered whether the young person was 'at trial' within the meaning of the Act, which is a prerequisite for the appointment of counsel.

The court held that the arraignment and entering of a plea, including a guilty plea, constitutes the commencement of the trial process.

Consequently, upon entering a plea, the young person is considered to be 'at trial' and is entitled to a court order for the appointment of counsel.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from an altercation in a laneway: uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, assault, and carrying a weapon (knife) for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two civilian witnesses who had a face-to-face confrontation with the accused and another woman.

The court examined the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence, considering the quality of observation, lighting conditions, and the identification procedures employed.

The court found that despite some inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts and the absence of formal identification procedures, the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the individual who assaulted and threatened the complainant.

The court also amended the information to reflect that the accused possessed a beer bottle rather than a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, based on the trial evidence.

The accused was sentenced following guilty pleas to sexual offences against a person under 16 years of age.

The court accepted a joint submission for a custodial sentence after considering aggravating factors including breach of trust and multiple incidents, and mitigating factors including the guilty plea and relatively limited criminal record.

The court emphasized the heightened mitigating value of guilty pleas in cases involving child victims because they avoid the trauma of trial.

The accused received 18 months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation with strict no‑contact conditions.

Additional orders included a DNA order, a ten‑year weapons prohibition, lifetime sex offender registry registration, and a five‑year prohibition order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code.

Following reasons on a motion to change involving a mobility dispute, the court determined the issue of costs.

The responding party had been clearly successful on the motion, particularly on the central mobility issue, triggering the presumption under Family Law Rule 24 that a successful party is entitled to costs.

The court rejected allegations that the moving party acted in bad faith, finding no sinister motive despite vigorous litigation conduct.

Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the volume of the record, and the overall circumstances, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

A young Aboriginal offender, age 18 at sentencing (17 at the time of offences), was convicted of two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possessing a firearm without a licence.

The offender fired two shots at police officers during an armed confrontation, resulting in the offender being shot four times by police.

The offender sustained severe injuries including loss of sight in one eye, brain injury, and permanent nerve damage.

The court imposed a 24-month probation sentence with strict conditions rather than custody, applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, background of intergenerational trauma from residential schools, history of bullying, and significant physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of the incident.