Iain Sunderland

The Ontario Court of Justice declined to accept a joint sentencing submission of a six-month conditional sentence for an offender who pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles over $5,000.

The court expressed serious concerns that the proposed sentence was too lenient given the prevalence of vehicle theft in the Greater Toronto Area and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court ordered the Crown to obtain victim impact statements, provide detailed information on the value and recovery of all vehicles involved, and produce police statistics on automobile theft prevalence, investigations, and resources in Toronto and the GTA, pursuant to s. 723 of the Criminal Code and the procedure outlined in R. v. Anthony Cook.

The accused, F.A., was charged with uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, sexual assault, and incest against his biological daughter, S.N. The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which detailed the alleged events on New Year's Eve/Day 2019/2020, including a threat, sexual assault, and non-consensual sexual intercourse.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming he was intoxicated and passed out.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, despite some inconsistencies, and rejected the accused's testimony as incredible.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all three counts.

The accused applied for a bail review after being detained on serious firearms and drug charges.

The police had found handguns, ammunition, and drugs in a secret compartment in a vehicle primarily driven by the accused.

The accused argued the justice of the peace erred in law and that a new release plan and a reduction in the alleged weight of fentanyl constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no error by the justice of the peace and concluding that the new evidence did not materially alter the tertiary ground for detention.

The two offenders were convicted of firearms offences after a loaded restricted firearm with an extended magazine was found in the vehicle they were occupying, shortly after an exchange of gunfire with another vehicle.

The Crown sought 6 years for the passenger and 2 years less a day for the driver, while the defence sought 30 months and 12 months respectively.

The court sentenced the passenger to 40 months and the driver to 18 months, finding their moral blameworthiness differed significantly.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest but declined to grant additional credit for the Covid-19 pandemic due to a lack of specific evidence regarding its impact on the offenders' incarceration.

Jorge Gomes was sentenced for two counts of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and causing bodily harm.

The court considered the severe and permanent injuries sustained by two victims, the offender's lack of prior criminal record, and the potential collateral immigration consequences as a permanent resident.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, particularly given the urban setting and the high blood alcohol concentration, the court imposed a sentence of three years in custody concurrently for each count, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

The court rejected a shorter sentence to avoid deportation, affirming that immigration consequences cannot justify an otherwise unfit sentence.

The accused was charged with two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm after his pick-up truck struck two pedestrians crossing a four-lane road.

The accused admitted to driving the vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration between 150mg and 185mg per 100ml of blood.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, which contributed to his excessive speed and failure to notice the highly visible pedestrians in time to avoid the collision.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Domenico Scopelliti was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting his father-in-law, Rocco Zito.

The jury found provocation, reducing the charge from first-degree murder.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence requested 7 years, with the accepted range being 8 to 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the use of a firearm and the defendant's involvement in organized crime activities, despite mitigating factors like no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, reduced by pre-trial custody.

The accused, a 54-year-old caregiver at a group home operated by the Reena Foundation, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 28-year-old female resident with severe developmental and mental health disabilities.

The assault occurred in the resident's locked room during overnight hours when the accused was the sole staff member on duty.

The victim suffered significant psychological harm and behavioral regression following the incident.

The Crown sought 12-14 months incarceration plus 3 years probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 6-8 months.

The court imposed 13 months incarceration followed by 3 years probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the gross breach of trust, the victim's exceptional vulnerability, and the devastating impact on the victim and her family.