Gregory Leslie

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a former employee at his meat processing company.

The complainant alleged that the accused approached her from behind on two occasions, smelling her hair, placing his hands on her shoulder and neck, and touching her arms.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including contradictory accounts of how she left the office, whether she spoke to her husband, and when she disclosed the incident.

The court also noted that the complainant failed to initially mention observing an erection until after her memory was refreshed by her police statement.

While the accused's testimony contained some implausible elements, the court found it could not reject his denial.

The Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused, Shou Chen, was convicted of second-degree murder.

This decision concerns the sentencing, specifically the parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and jury recommendations, as required by the Criminal Code.

Despite the Crown seeking a 12-year parole ineligibility period, the court found a compelling causal link between the accused's late-onset schizophrenia and the offence.

This mental disorder, combined with the accused's lack of prior record and the jury's recommendation for the minimum, led the court to impose the mandatory minimum 10-year parole ineligibility period.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA databank submission were also made.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a mistrial application after his forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, revised his opinion, no longer supporting a "not criminally responsible" (NCRMD) defence on a balance of probabilities.

The defence sought a mistrial to find another expert psychiatrist and secure Legal Aid funding.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a mistrial is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted.

The judge found that the change in expert opinion, partly attributable to defence counsel's delay in providing relevant reports, did not cause actual prejudice or unfairness, as the defence retained strategic options for presenting its case.

The court also noted the case's long history of defence-related delays.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, objected to the admissibility of recognition/identification evidence from a Crown witness, Mr. Wan Peng Mei.

The Crown sought to have Mr. Mei identify the accused from surveillance video footage based on his prior acquaintance.

The defence argued that the witness was in no better position than the jury due to poor image quality.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding that Mr. Mei had significant prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him from the video, despite the image quality.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice, with appropriate jury instructions to mitigate risks of unreliability.

Siaka Camara was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearms offences, carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited firearms, and assault.

He also pleaded guilty to fraudulent personation and four counts of breaching firearms prohibition orders.

The court considered sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as primary, with rehabilitation as a secondary factor.

Aggravating factors included his criminal record, illegal return to Canada, and the serious nature of the firearms offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of nine years, less 4.5 years for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 4.5 years to be served, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and no-contact orders.

The accused was charged with theft, assault with a weapon, and possession of a knife for the purpose of committing a criminal offence in connection with a robbery at knifepoint of a York University student.

The victim could not identify his assailants.

The Crown's case relied on video evidence from a nearby apartment building, eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene, recognition evidence from a police officer, and physical evidence of clothing seized from the accused's home.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through the convergence of video evidence, eyewitness testimony, recognition evidence, and physical evidence linking the accused to the robbery.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.