G. Partington

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by three defendants charged in relation to a first degree murder.

The defendants argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of their Charter rights.

The court found all three statements were voluntary.

Mr. Kerr's statement was admitted despite a minor s. 10(b) breach.

Mr. Samuel's statement was admitted as no Charter breaches were established.

Ms. Owen's statement was excluded under s. 24(2) because she was arbitrarily detained and denied her right to counsel during the execution of a search warrant, and the court rejected the Crown's argument that the 'actus reus exception' precluded exclusion.

This ruling addresses a Section 8 Charter application by the accused, Paul Spencer, seeking to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant for his apartment unit.

The warrant was based on police surveillance conducted without permission in the common areas (hallways, stairwells) of his apartment building and exterior observations of his balcony.

The court found that Mr. Spencer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of his building, especially near his unit, and that the police's surreptitious entry and surveillance constituted a warrantless search, violating his Section 8 rights.

Applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the breach, the significant impact on the accused's privacy, and the need to maintain the repute of the justice system outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

Consequently, all evidence obtained from the search of the accused's residence was excluded.

The accused challenged the validity of two search warrants issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis that they violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli application to determine whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused also brought a constitutional challenge to the "Step Six" procedure and sought the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, declined to appoint amicus, and found that the warrants could have been issued based on credible, compelling, and corroborated information from a confidential informant combined with independent police investigation, including OPP wiretap evidence of firearms trafficking.

The accused was charged with fraud, forgery, and obstructing police arising from an attempted purchase of cell phones using forged identification at a retail store.

The Crown sought convictions on all counts.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were violated through searches of his laptop bag, seizure of car keys, and warrantless search of his vehicle without valid consent.

The court excluded evidence obtained from the unlawful vehicle search.

The accused was convicted of attempted fraud and using forged identification but acquitted of obstructing police charges, finding any obstruction was de minimis.

Charges related to possession of forged documents were dismissed due to exclusion of evidence.