George Spartinos

The accused brought two applications under sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code seeking to admit evidence of the prior sexual activity of two young complainants (sisters).

Under section 278.92, the accused sought to admit text messages exchanged between the accused and one complainant, and text messages between that complainant and her friend.

Under section 276, the accused sought to admit evidence that the younger complainant had viewed pornography and attempted to observe the accused and her mother engaging in sexual activity.

The court found that the text messages constituted records under section 278.1 and were capable of being admitted.

At stage two, both the complainant's counsel and the Crown conceded that the text messages had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice, and the court admitted them.

For the section 276 application, the court found that viewing pornography and observing sexual activity constitute sexual activity within the meaning of section 276, and that the evidence was sufficiently specific.

At stage two, the court balanced the factors under section 276(3) and found that the evidence had significant probative value relevant to the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, and admitted the evidence subject to parameters to be determined by the trial judge.

The court sentenced Ryan Kiteley for theft under $5,000 (as a lesser included offence of robbery), possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and four counts of failure to comply with probation.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, and the positions of the parties.

The sentence imposed was a global sentence of 435 days’ imprisonment (with 285 days’ credit for pre-sentence custody), followed by three years’ probation with conditions, and ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The court emphasized the need for specific deterrence and public protection, given the offender’s lengthy record and risk factors.

The decision concerns the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in a prosecution for firearms and drug offences.

The accused, Hussein Al Hayawi, was stopped by police and found in possession of drugs and firearms.

The court considered whether the accused had knowledge and control over the firearms, ammunition, and cannabis found in the trunk of the vehicle, and whether the cannabis was possessed for the purpose of selling.

The court found the accused guilty on all remaining counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence established knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder in 2007 and sentenced to life with 25 years of parole ineligibility, applied for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the 'faint hope' clause (s. 745.6(1) of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge, who was also the trial judge, found that despite the brutality of the crime, the applicant demonstrated significant rehabilitative progress, maturity, and community support.

Applying the 'reasonable prospect of success' standard, the court directed that a jury be empanelled to consider the application.

The offender, Robert Hearns, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutal, unprovoked attack on a vulnerable victim and the offender's substantial criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as the guilty plea and rehabilitation efforts.

The joint sentencing position of time served plus probation was accepted, largely influenced by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the increased risk of infection faced by inmates in custodial institutions.

The court took judicial notice of the pandemic's impact on sentencing principles, noting that it affects the fitness of sentence and may justify a departure from usual ranges, without granting a "get out of jail free" card.

Dia Eddin Hanan was sentenced for manslaughter, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and discharge of a firearm with intent to wound, following a jury trial where he was acquitted of second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The court made specific factual findings for sentencing, including that Hanan brought the gun, initiated the shooting, and shot one victim in the back as he fled, causing permanent paralysis.

The global sentence imposed was 15 years imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 7 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences, which resulted in one death and one lifetime paralysis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for careless use of a firearm.

After experiencing multiple break-ins, the appellant armed himself with a loaded BB gun to confront suspected trespassers on his property.

He chased a suspect down a public alleyway and banged on a neighbour's door while holding the firearm.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person and that the defences of defence of property and citizen's arrest were not available because his actions were not reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, R.T., was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, involving a 16-year-old complainant with whom he had a sexual relationship.

The central issue was whether the accused was in a position of trust towards the complainant, thereby vitiating her apparent consent.

The court found a significant age difference, the complainant's vulnerability due to family difficulties and loneliness, and the accused's grooming behaviour, including sexual discussions and providing benefits, established a position of trust.

Consequently, the complainant's consent was deemed invalid, and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography after his roommate discovered illicit images on his computer and turned the computer and several disks over to the police on multiple occasions.

The accused brought a motion to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that the police conducted unlawful warrantless seizures, that the roommate acted as a police agent, and that the subsequent search warrants were invalid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the warrantless seizures were authorized by common law and statute, the roommate acted independently and not as a state agent, and the search warrants were validly issued with sufficient specificity and reasonable grounds.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of Xhuljeta Vlashi on August 27, 2012.

The Crown sought to establish that the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court heard evidence over five days from approximately thirty witnesses, reviewed agreed statements of fact, forensic reports, and eleven exhibits.

The accused suffered from documented schizophrenia and killed the one person in his life who was caring for him while she was on a video call with her niece.

The court found that while the evidence clearly established the accused killed the victim intentionally, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for first degree murder.

The killing appeared impulsive, rash, and irrational, with no prior animosity, threats, or rational motive.

The court committed the accused to stand trial on the lesser charge of second degree murder.