Heather Pringle

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Dylan Victor McCormack-Woolacoot after he pled guilty to ten charges involving repeated low-level offences and assaults over an eighteen-month period, committed while breaching multiple court orders.

The key issue was the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, with the defence seeking enhanced Summers credit (1.5:1) and the Crown opposing based on a recent trial decision denying such credit due to reoffending while on bail.

The court rejected the Crown’s reliance on R. v. Jeyakanthan, finding it unpersuasive and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and awarded 1.5:1 credit for all pre-sentence custody.

The global sentence imposed was 460 days, reflecting aggravating and mitigating factors, with probation and ancillary orders.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Silvano Lochner of criminal harassment under s. 264(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with police officer Douglas Letsche and his family members over a period spanning from 2022 to 2024.

The communications, primarily emails, related to an incident from 2006 involving the tasering of Lochner’s disabled brother during the execution of a Feeney warrant.

Despite the absence of overt threats, the court found that the volume, persistence, and personal nature of the emails, especially those sent to Letsche’s brother-in-law in March 2024 referencing personal family information, caused Letsche to reasonably fear for his safety and that of his family.

The court emphasized the defendant’s recklessness in continuing communications despite clear indications that contact was unwelcome and the escalation in targeting family members.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Shagaran Senthilgumar of impaired driving contrary to section 320.14(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on a high THC blood concentration (72 ng/ml) found after a collision, arguing impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The court held that no direct evidence established impairment at the time of driving, and that the THC blood drug concentration alone, even at levels far exceeding prescribed legal limits for other offences, could not prove impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The decision emphasized the necessity of expert evidence and cautioned against judicial notice or speculative inferences based solely on THC levels, especially given alternative reasonable explanations such as a medical crisis (seizures).

After trial, Dominic D’Angelo Wright was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences involving possession of a loaded handgun, large sums of cash, and various controlled substances.

A joint submission for a global sentence of six years was accepted by the court.

The sentencing considered an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment Report (IRCA) which detailed Mr. Wright’s challenging upbringing in a high-crime, low-income neighbourhood, his struggles with loss, substance abuse, and systemic discrimination.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offences, particularly the impact of opioid trafficking and gun possession on community safety.

Enhanced presentence custody credit was granted due to harsh incarceration conditions.

The sentence balances denunciation and deterrence with recognition of Mr. Wright’s rehabilitative potential, including his educational achievements while in custody.

The Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment of Lionel Brian Williams under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, on reasonable grounds that he might be found a dangerous offender or long-term offender due to a serious personal injury offence (assault with a weapon).

The court reviewed extensive evidence including police synopses, CPIC records, and transcripts, noting Mr. Williams' long history of violent and non-violent offences, his marginalized status, and patterns of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

The court found the low threshold for ordering an assessment met, emphasizing the procedural nature of s. 752.1 and the importance of protecting public safety.

The application for psychiatric assessment was granted.

The accused, Dominic Wright, faced charges related to drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under the CDSA and Criminal Code, as well as breaches of a release order.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused was in constructive possession of controlled substances and cash found in a condo unit.

The court found the accused in constructive possession of fentanyl and cash in the kitchen and bedroom closet, applying the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in constructive possession of fentanyl found in the dryer.

The accused was found guilty of most charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking (oxycodone, MDMA, fentanyl in kitchen/closet), possession of proceeds of crime, and most breaches of a release order, but not guilty of possession of fentanyl in the dryer or the cell phone breach.

Tyvon Whyte was found guilty of sexual assault after a contested trial.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The complainant, an aspiring model, was intoxicated by alcohol and cannabis supplied by Mr. Whyte during a photoshoot.

Mr. Whyte made non-consensual sexual advances, persisting despite the complainant's clear verbal and physical disengagement.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, coercion into suggestive photos, and the fact that Mr. Whyte was on an undertaking for a separate sexual assault at the time.

Mitigating factors included his lack of prior criminal history (absolute discharge expunged), youthfulness (25), strong community support, work history, and compliance with bail conditions.

The paramount sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of six months jail, but converted it to a one-year conditional sentence order (CSO) with strict punitive conditions, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders (SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition).

The applicant sought a stay of charges due to a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay (including prolonged non-attendance, inefficient re-tracing of procedural steps, time pursuing resolution, and defence counsel unavailability), and accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

Despite significant Crown efforts, the net delay still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases by 22 days.

The court found the s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

Saffira Andrews pleaded guilty to common assault for repeatedly punching a stranger at a baseball game.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court had to determine a fit sentence, resolve a contested aggravating factor related to post-offence conduct (leaving the victim after a subsequent assault by a co-accused), and separate the impact of Andrews' assault from the co-accused's more severe assault.

The court granted a conditional discharge, finding it was in the defendant's best interest and not contrary to public interest, considering her mental health crisis, indigenous heritage, and rehabilitative efforts.

The accused, Di’on Jahil Wong, brought an application alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police delayed facilitating access to counsel without justification and conducted an unreasonable strip search without sufficient grounds, relying solely on the nature of the drug trafficking charge.

The court dismissed the s. 10(a) breach claim and found the pat-down search reasonable.

As a remedy for the s. 8 and s. 10(b) breaches, the court ordered a stay of all charges against the accused, emphasizing the need to denounce police misconduct and preserve the integrity of the justice system, particularly given the invasive and humiliating nature of the unjustified strip search.

The defendant, charged with sexual assault, brought a pretrial motion seeking a ruling that Instagram messages between him and the complainant were not "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, thus not requiring the pre-screening procedure.

The Crown argued for a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in either the general platonic messages (Group #1) or the more sensitive cocaine trafficking messages (Group #2), concluding that the messages were not "records" under s. 278.1 and no further defence application was required.

The Crown sought to vary an unsealing order for an Information to Obtain (ITO) related to a search warrant execution that resulted in a fatality, requesting to seal the identity of a civilian Toronto Police Service employee or impose a five-year publication ban.

The media outlets opposed the application.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the evidence did not objectively establish a serious risk to an important public interest sufficient to dislodge the presumption of openness under the Dagenais/Mentuck test, as refined by Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court noted the threats were directed at the officer who shot the deceased, not the civilian employee, and the link between the employee's identity and potential harm was speculative.

The defendant, Jehangir Khan, was charged with sexual assault.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses versus the defendant's testimony.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and found the defendant's evidence credible and reliable, corroborated by a third-party witness (PW).

The complainant's testimony was deemed untrustworthy due to altered text messages, evasiveness, internal inconsistencies, and collaboration with other witnesses to craft a false narrative.

The Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant was found sleeping in a parked van and charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol content (BAC) over 80 mg.

The trial addressed three contested issues: reasonable grounds for arrest (s. 8 Charter), failure to provide a Prosper warning (s. 10(b) Charter), and proof beyond reasonable doubt for both charges.

The court found objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and dismissed the s. 8 application.

It determined that a Prosper warning was not legally required under the circumstances, or was functionally met, and the defendant's waiver of counsel was informed and unequivocal, leading to the admission of breath samples and a conviction for the over 80 BAC charge.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of impaired operation, finding reasonable doubt regarding actual impairment due to alternative explanations for roadside indicia and the absence of driving evidence.

The defendant was sentenced for possessing a loaded restricted firearm and dangerous controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl.

The court balanced the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the defendant's strong rehabilitative potential, youth, and community support.

Aggravating factors included the firearm's purpose (drug trade protection), the deadly nature and quantity of fentanyl, other drugs, motive of greed, bail breaches, and quick return to drug trade.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, first offender status, youth, community support, and excellent rehabilitative potential.

The global sentence was set at six years, reduced from an initial seven years to foster rehabilitation, less presentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking.

He operated an illegal marijuana dispensary in Toronto that he claimed was intended to serve only medical users.

The Crown sought a $25,000 fine and two-year probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that while the operation posed risks of community harm, no actual harm occurred, the accused's motivation was primarily to help medical users, and he had ceased operations and demonstrated rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for an illegal left turn.

The Crown alleged the accused refused to comply with a breath demand made by police.

The trial judge found that although the accused initially refused the demand, he subsequently changed his mind and offered to provide a sample while still at the scene, approximately 36 seconds after his arrest.

The court determined that this change of heart fell within a single transaction of response to the demand and therefore the Crown failed to prove the essential element of intentional refusal beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of Fraud Over $5,000 for stealing approximately $162,480.29 from his employer over a period of 5½ years by making unauthorized technology purchases and reselling the equipment online.

The Crown sought 8-10 months in jail followed by two years of probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months plus three years of probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation, finding exceptional mitigating circumstances including the accused's status as a first offender, guilty plea, genuine remorse, addiction-driven offending, community support, and two years of abstinence from gambling and drugs.

The court addressed whether a mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for trafficking a firearm remained operative following Superior Court decisions declaring the provision unconstitutional.

The court held that a declaration of invalidity made by the Superior Court of Justice binds the Ontario Court of Justice and that the Crown must either appeal such a declaration or accept its effect.

The court concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to traffic a firearm no longer applies.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

Although the total net delay, including retrial time, exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, the court found the transitional exceptional circumstance applied.

The parties had relied on the prior Morin framework when the case was proceeding, and the operative delay under Morin guidelines, while exceeding them slightly, was not so egregious as to warrant a stay.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.