Glen Crisp

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Ammaan Charley, who was convicted of multiple serious offences, including firearms, drug trafficking, robbery, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzes aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic racism, the harshness of pre-sentence custody, and the application of the totality principle.

The final sentence imposed is 16 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and includes ancillary orders such as a firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences and criminal organization offences related to his activities in Thunder Bay in the spring of 2020.

The Crown alleged that the accused, a member of the Eglinton West Crips (EWC), trafficked cocaine and fentanyl with the assistance of other gang members.

The court found that the EWC met the definition of a criminal organization and that the accused was a member.

Relying on extensive circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications and surveillance, the court concluded the accused was in constructive possession of drugs found on a co-conspirator, trafficked in fentanyl, and committed these offences for the benefit of and in association with the EWC.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused brought a lost evidence application arguing his s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence was violated when police lost surveillance video footage from a covert camera.

The footage was properly bookmarked by the investigating officer but failed to save due to a software glitch in the police Genetec system.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Crown established the loss was not due to unacceptable negligence, as police were unaware of the specific software issue at the time.

Furthermore, the accused failed to show the lost video would have played an important role in his defence, as the view was obstructed and the issue of joint possession rendered the specific location of the bag insignificant.

The Crown sought to admit preliminary inquiry evidence of a police officer (PC Stamplecoskie) at trial under s.715 or s.715.01 of the Criminal Code, as the officer was unavailable due to a workplace injury.

The defence argued the unavailability under s.715 was not sufficiently proven.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish unavailability for s.715 but admitted the transcript under s.715.01.

The court declined to compel the officer's attendance for cross-examination, finding no suggestion of unfairness or lack of full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, and rejecting the defence's argument to read a necessity requirement into s.715.01.

The applicants, Vito Bailey-Ricketts and Victoria Dittmer, brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of evidence obtained from warrantless searches incident to their arrest.

The central issue was whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to lawfully arrest the applicants for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the totality of circumstantial evidence, including wiretaps, surveillance, and location data gathered during "Project Sunder," provided objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests.

Consequently, the arrests did not violate s. 9 of the Charter, and the subsequent searches did not violate s. 8.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused, charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking for a criminal organization and obstruction of justice, applied for a bail review.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to a new release plan involving two sureties and an ankle monitor.

The court found that while the proposed sureties were sufficient to meet the secondary ground, the accused failed to meet his onus on the tertiary ground.

Given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the accused's alleged attempt to procure a fake surety to subvert the bail process, detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and related offences.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and a severe substance use disorder.

The court reviewed extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence, including risk assessments using the PCL-R, VRAG, and HCR-20.

The court found that the predicate offence was reactive rather than instrumental, and therefore did not form part of a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour required for a dangerous offender designation.

However, the court found the offender met the criteria for a long-term offender designation.

The offender was sentenced to a further 12 months in custody followed by a 6.5-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, Osama Filli, was charged with second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Nahom Berhane.

The trial proceeded without a jury.

The central issues were self-defence and the intent for murder.

The court found that while Filli subjectively believed he was in danger and acted for self-defence, his belief was not objectively reasonable, and his response (stabbing an unarmed man with a knife when retreat was possible) was grossly disproportionate.

Therefore, self-defence was disproven.

Regarding intent, the court found that Filli intended to cause bodily harm but was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause bodily harm of such a grave and serious nature that he knew it was likely to result in death.

Consequently, Filli was found not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of manslaughter.

The Crown sought to qualify Dr. Mark Pearce as an expert forensic psychiatrist to provide opinion evidence on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending in a dangerous offender proceeding.

The court conducted a voir dire, examining Dr. Pearce's extensive qualifications, training, and experience, including his specialization in forensic psychiatry and use of actuarial instruments for recidivism risk assessment.

The respondent challenged the scope of expertise.

The court found Dr. Pearce highly qualified and accepted him as an expert in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders in both clinical and forensic contexts, specifically qualified to opine on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions on sexual interference charges involving two children at his parent's home day care.

The appeal court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence of both complainants and the appellant.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to properly consider one child's adoption of prior inconsistent statements to police, overlooked evidence relevant to the other child's credibility, and mischaracterized the appellant's testimony without basis.

The appeal was allowed, with acquittals entered for the charges relating to one complainant and a new trial ordered for the charges relating to the other.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder following a stabbing that occurred in an apartment building elevator lobby.

At sentencing, the court considered whether to increase the statutory 10‑year period of parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code, having regard to the nature of the offence, the offender’s character, and the jury’s recommendation.

The offender was a young first‑time offender who expressed genuine remorse, and most jurors recommended the minimum period.

Although the attack was vicious and involved a knife carried in anticipation of an altercation, the court concluded the offence did not justify increasing the parole ineligibility period beyond the statutory baseline.

Life imprisonment with 10 years’ parole ineligibility was imposed, along with mandatory firearm prohibition and DNA orders.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion for directions on whether the jury should be instructed on self-defence using the former or newly amended provisions of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offence occurred before the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act came into force.

The court held that the presumption against retrospective application of legislation affecting substantive rights was rebutted.

The new provisions were intended to clarify and simplify the law, providing a benefit to claimants, and therefore apply retrospectively to the applicant's trial.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to murder and commit aggravated assault, counselling to murder and commit aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon.

The charges arose from an overheard conversation where Abou Al-Rashta instructed Pirouzi to attack two individuals.

The court found insufficient evidence of a meeting of minds to support the conspiracy charges against both accused.

However, the court found Abou Al-Rashta guilty of counselling the offences, as he actively induced and encouraged Pirouzi.

Pirouzi was also found guilty of assault with a weapon for a separate incident involving a remote control.