George Hendry

The defendant, O'Neal Spalding, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to a fatal shooting during a planned home invasion robbery.

The Crown sought a 14-15 year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years or time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned armed home invasion, the defendant's leadership role, his criminal record, and the devastating victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, difficult background, experience of racism, mental health issues, and strong community support.

The court also addressed the impact of pre-sentence custody conditions, including lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 years in custody, less 1449 days for pre-sentence credit, along with a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The offender, a drug dealer, was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon against two female drug addicts, one of whom was his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court denied pre-trial custody credit for time the offender spent serving an unrelated federal sentence.

However, the court granted 247 days of credit for the exceptionally stringent bail conditions (house arrest) the offender endured.

The offender was sentenced to 17 months' incarceration, reduced by the 247-day credit to 270 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The accused, S.B.S., faced a 13-count indictment including human trafficking, procuring, assault, administering a noxious thing, and receiving material benefit.

The accused admitted to two assault charges (counts 6 and 11) and a related assault charge (count 10).

The Crown invited an acquittal on one charge (count 7).

The court found the Crown failed to prove human trafficking (counts 1, 8, 12) and procuring (counts 3, 4, 9, 13) beyond a reasonable doubt for all three complainants, largely due to inconsistencies in complainant testimony and lack of sufficient control exercised by the accused over the complainants' movements or sex trade work.

The court also dismissed charges of receiving material benefit related to exploitation and procuring.

The applicant, Alden Nunes, brought an application to exclude evidence (guns, fentanyl, ecstasy) obtained via a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds to believe evidence would be found at the searched residence (21 Redvers Street, Whitby), as the police failed to establish Mr. Moore's current residency there or investigate beyond his outdated bail conditions.

Despite the absence of police bad faith, the Charter-infringing conduct was deemed serious due to the lack of investigation and the high expectation of privacy in a dwelling.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant and her mother to testify by video link from Quebec in a trial for human trafficking and sexual assault.

The defence opposed the complainant testifying by video link but did not strenuously oppose the mother's request.

The court granted the application for the mother to testify from Quebec under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

For the complainant, the court found it appropriate for her to testify outside the courtroom but ordered that she must do so from the Oshawa courthouse, citing concerns about managing cross-examination with documents and transcripts if she were in Quebec.

The accused applied under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of search warrants at two apartment units.

The warrants were based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) relying heavily on confidential informants, resulting in significant redactions in the disclosure provided to the accused.

Following a Garofoli step six procedure, the court reviewed the unredacted ITO, ordered certain excisions, and determined that the judicial summary provided to the accused was sufficient.

The court found the confidential informants' information compelling and credible, compensating for weaknesses in corroboration.

The court also dismissed allegations of impermissible judge-shopping by the police.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

He absconded prior to sentencing.

The court sentenced him in absentia to a global term of 7 years imprisonment.

The court awarded 23 months of pre-sentence custody credit, including time spent in custody on subsequent charges, finding that custody was attributable to the initial charges.

A request for credit for strict bail conditions was denied due to a lack of evidence and the offender's absconding.

The applicant, convicted of two counts of second degree murder and awaiting a further murder trial, sought a publication ban on evidence and credibility findings arising from an earlier application under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code for access to seized funds to pay legal fees.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a ban and applied the common law Dagenais/Mentuck test balancing freedom of expression against the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The court concluded that publication of the applicant’s admissions of criminal activity and the court’s adverse credibility findings posed a serious risk to the proper administration of justice in the upcoming jury trial.

A temporary ban was therefore necessary and proportionate.

The court ordered a time‑limited publication ban on the evidence, the fact of the application, and the earlier decision until completion of the pending murder trial.

The accused applied under s. 462.34(1) of the Criminal Code for access to funds seized by police as alleged proceeds of crime in order to pay legal fees while facing multiple serious criminal charges including kidnapping and murder.

The court applied the three‑part test requiring proof of an interest in the funds, the absence of other assets or means to fund legal expenses, and the absence of competing ownership claims.

While the Crown conceded the accused had an interest in the seized funds, the court found he failed to establish that he lacked other available assets.

Given extensive evidence of undisclosed or unaccounted assets and the applicant’s lack of credibility, the court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that no other means existed to fund counsel.