Iain Sunderland

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder following an unprovoked stabbing of an unarmed man at a homeless shelter.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 18 to 20 years, while the defence argued for 12 years.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record involving violence, the element of planning, and the profound impact on the victim's family, balanced against the offender's mental health struggles and difficult background.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 15-year parole ineligibility period, along with mandatory weapons prohibition and DNA orders.

Sentencing on a guilty plea to careless driving causing death contrary to s. 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant drove a van at high speed toward a boat launch ramp in a parking lot adjacent to Ashbridges Bay, mistaking it for an exit road.

The vehicle entered the icy waters of Lake Ontario and sank, resulting in the death of the front-seat passenger who was trapped by an interior security cage.

The original charge of dangerous driving causing death under the Criminal Code was withdrawn after the Crown determined insufficient evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care.

A joint submission was accepted pursuant to R. v. Anthony-Cook.

Sentence comprised time served of four months actual custody with enhanced credit of six months less a day, twelve months probation with counselling conditions, a five-year driving suspension, and a victim fine surcharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and erotomanic delusions focused on her former physician.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her lack of insight, history of non-compliance with treatment, and recent resurgence of psychotic symptoms.

The Board ordered the continuation of her detention disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with privileges for community living once her condition stabilizes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a detention order for 3.5 years with no readmissions.

While the Board found the accused continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to unpredictable relapses of paranoid delusions, it concluded that his risk could be managed under a less intrusive disposition.

Applying the principle of minimal intrusion, the Board granted a conditional discharge with terms mirroring the previous detention order, including a residence clause and weekly reporting.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been detained at CAMH but living in the community with his family.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, his risk could be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions including residence, reporting, and consent to treatment, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

Brian O’Donnell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent after shooting the victim, Lacramioara Flanagan, with a sawed-off shotgun from behind at close range.

The offences were premeditated and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

The Court considered the offender’s psychiatric and cognitive disorders, his criminal history, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence imposed was 2859 days imprisonment before credit, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a no-contact order.

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.

Sentencing decision following convictions for uttering threats, sexual assault, and incest arising from non-consensual sexual acts committed by the offender against his adult daughter while she was living temporarily in his apartment and was in a position of vulnerability.

Applying the sentencing objectives in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of parental trust, repeated sexual violence, and the profound victim impact.

The court found that the numerous aggravating factors overwhelmingly supported a penitentiary sentence and rejected the defence submission for a lower-end sentence.

A global five-year concurrent sentence was imposed on the incest and sexual assault counts, with a concurrent six-month term for uttering threats, together with mandatory ancillary orders.

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.

The accused was charged with public mischief and criminal harassment arising from her interactions with police regarding concerns about her son being abused by his father.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the essential elements of both offences.

Specifically, the Crown provided no clear evidence of the specific false allegation constituting the actus reus of mischief, no proof of falsity, and no evidence of the accused's knowledge that her allegations were false.

Regarding criminal harassment, the court found that the accused's lawful calls to police did not constitute prohibited conduct under section 264 of the Criminal Code, and that the accused's conduct did not cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his safety within the meaning of the statute.

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 pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.

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.

The accused was charged with break and enter, child abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference arising from the nighttime abduction of a child from a residence.

On a voir dire, the defence challenged the admissibility of DNA samples and two police statements, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The court found the accused was not psychologically detained during the initial police interview and that his statement and consent DNA sample were voluntary and informed.

The court also held there were no Charter breaches in relation to counsel rights or the right to silence during the later custodial interview.

Both the statements and DNA evidence were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with Drive Over 80mg, Fail to Stop, and Fail to Remain contrary to the Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the total delay of 16 months and 17 days, comprising 13 months and 16 days of institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeded the Morin guidelines.

The primary cause of delay was the crown's failure to provide a working copy of the in-car camera video, which was essential disclosure.

The court found that the applicant acted diligently throughout and that the crown's inaction and poor communication regarding the video constituted unreasonable delay.

The court inferred prejudice based on the length and nature of the delay and granted the application for a stay of proceedings.