Ian Scott McCuaig

The proposed intervener brought a motion for leave to intervene in the Crown's appeal against the respondent's acquittal for public incitement of hatred.

The respondent had been acquitted on the basis that his online statements were not communicated in a "public place" as required by s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interpretation of "public place" in the context of online communications is an issue of wide-reaching impact.

The court concluded that the proposed intervener's submissions on statutory interpretation were sufficiently distinct from the Crown's and would provide useful assistance to the panel.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had recently transitioned to a 24-hour supervised community residence and demonstrated sustained psychiatric stability on medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to the conditional nature of his stability and the severity of the index offence.

The Board ordered a continued detention order with privileges for supervised community living and a reduction in reporting frequency, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after admitting to causing the death of the victim.

The defence raised not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused suffered from Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder exacerbated by prolonged substance use, and that his internal predisposition — including a vulnerable brain, prior episodes of psychosis, and features of borderline and antisocial personality disorder — contributed causally to his mental state at the time of the offence.

Applying the holistic approach from R. v. Stone and R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found the drug-induced psychosis constituted a disease of the mind and that the continuing danger factor was satisfied.

A verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was entered.

The accused was charged with murder and brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and abuse of process.

The Crown failed to disclose critical DNA evidence identifying the victim's brother's DNA on a mask recovered at the scene, which had been in police possession since January 7, 2025, but was not disclosed until September 9, 2025, on the eve of trial.

Additionally, the Crown failed to timely disclose cell tower evidence and corresponding witness statements necessary to establish the accused's identity as the suspect.

The court found serious violations of the accused's section 7 Charter rights and determined that the Crown's pattern of negligence, apathy, and late preparation constituted an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, and breach of a probation order following a brutal, premeditated attack on the victim in a schoolyard.

The victim suffered permanent loss of sight in one eye and other serious injuries.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years imprisonment for aggravated assault, with 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for breach of probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 6-7 years and the defence submission for 4 years, finding that 5 years was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the victim's life-changing injuries, the premeditated nature of the attack, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, while noting the record did not include serious prior violent offences.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and mischief.

The accused, diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, has remained stable in the community but lacks insight into his illness and the need for medication.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused would stop taking medication if not subject to a Board order, which would likely lead to decompensation and a return of psychotic symptoms.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his Conditional Discharge with no changes to its terms.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had previously held extremist religious beliefs that drove the index offence.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but noted his clinical stability and progress.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Order with the addition of indirectly supervised community privileges and the possibility of supervised community living, along with a no-contact order for the victim's family.

The court found Rysard Rzadkowski not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of aggravated assault and weapons dangerous, following an incident in which he stabbed his landlord.

The decision turned on whether the Crown had proven the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court concluded that, while the attack was premeditated and the injuries were life-threatening, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rzadkowski intended to kill the complainant.

The court accepted the complainant’s account as credible and reliable, and found the accused’s explanations to be implausible and contradicted by the evidence.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Frank Dimillo guilty of multiple firearm-related offences, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a firearm while prohibited, but acquitted him of aggravated assault.

The conviction rested primarily on the reliable and corroborated statement of his son, Blake Dimillo, who recounted the accused’s confession to shooting Morgan Richardson in the face.

Despite Blake’s in-court recantation, the judge preferred the original statement due to its precision, corroboration with physical evidence, and Blake’s motivation to tell the truth at the time.

The court carefully analyzed the circumstantial evidence, DNA findings, and the accused’s opportunity and motive, concluding the shooting was intentional and that the accused was the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a placement review hearing for a dual status offender who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for assault and was serving life sentences for rape and attempted murder.

The offender had been residing in the community under hospital supervision but exhibited concerning behaviour, including unauthorized contact with children and substance use.

The Board found that the hospital was no longer an appropriate placement, as the offender's risk factors were entirely criminogenic and he required the comprehensive sex offender programming and monitoring available through the Correctional Service of Canada.

The Board ordered the offender transferred to the jurisdiction of the CSC.

In this criminal proceeding, the Crown applied to admit the out-of-court hearsay statements of the complainant and the accused's son under the principled exception.

The complainant had disavowed his police statement identifying the accused as the shooter, and the son recanted his statement that he heard the accused confess.

The court denied the application for the complainant's statement, finding it lacked threshold reliability because the complainant was unavailable for meaningful cross-examination.

Conversely, the court admitted the son's statement, finding it met the threshold of procedural reliability because he was available for full cross-examination at trial.

The accused, Ross Simpson, was tried on charges of aggravated assault, robbery, and breach of probation arising from a late-night attack in a Toronto schoolyard.

The complainant, who suffered permanent vision loss in one eye, identified the accused as one of his attackers based on prior acquaintance.

The police recovered a broken baton from the scene, which forensic testing revealed contained DNA highly likely to belong to the accused.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence credible and corroborated by the physical and DNA evidence.

Accordingly, the court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused, Stephan Parr and Amy Rose-Podnar, brought mid-trial applications to exclude certain evidence in their first-degree murder trial.

Ms. Rose-Podnar sought to exclude seven text messages exchanged with a co-accused, Kaveh Lozoomi-Gamroodi, after the murder.

Both accused jointly sought to exclude testimony regarding the timing and number of phone calls between themselves and Dennis Crupi, the owner of a vehicle linked to the murder scene, around the time Crupi was being interviewed by police.

The court granted both applications, finding that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, as its admission would invite impermissible speculation and inferences of bad character, potentially forcing the accused to testify to provide context.

This ruling addresses a question of law during a criminal trial for manslaughter, specifically whether the actions of one of the accused, Mr. Parr, constituted an attempted robbery or mere preparation.

The Crown argued for attempted robbery as a third route to manslaughter conviction.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Cline, R. v. Root, and R. v. Deutsch, found that Mr. Parr's actions, including covering his hand to avoid fingerprints and remaining with an accomplice in the building, were indicative of an attempted robbery, not mere preparation.

The ruling allows this theory to be included in the jury charge.

Stephan Parr brought a motion to exclude certain shoe print evidence from his upcoming jury trial for murder.

The evidence included a police photograph of a shoe impression ("Impression F5") found at the scene, a video/photo of wet shoe impressions allegedly made by Parr, and product evidence from Adidas regarding CF Lite Racer shoes.

The Crown sought to have the jury compare Impression F5 with a product drawing of the shoes to infer Parr's presence at the scene.

The court granted the defence application, excluding the evidence on the grounds that its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.

The evidence was based on hearsay, lacked a proper foundation (no actual shoes seized, reliance on a product schematic), and the impression itself had poor clarity and discrepancies.

The court found that a lay jury would be unable to make meaningful conclusions from the evidence, and its introduction would distract the jury and lead to impermissible reasoning.

The defendant, Ahmed Noor, admitted to discharging a firearm but claimed self-defence and lacked intent to endanger life.

The court found that while Noor intentionally discharged the firearm with intent to endanger life, the Crown failed to disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Noor was found not guilty of intentional discharge of a firearm but guilty of related firearm and bail breaches based on admitted facts.

The Crown applied to have the offender, Vezio Cardullo, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistance by choking, and uttering threats.

The defence conceded the dangerous offender designation but opposed an indeterminate sentence, proposing a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found the offender to be a dangerous offender under all three pathways of the Criminal Code, citing his extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

However, based on expert evidence indicating the offender's treatability and motivation for change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 17 years' imprisonment (9.5 years net from judgment date) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The applicant, Marcus Akin Connell, sought to exclude evidence (a loaded handgun) under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The evidence was obtained following police detention, search, and arrest for breach of a release order.

The Crown conceded multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), unreasonable search and seizure of identification (s. 8), and denial of rights to counsel (s. 10(a) and 10(b)).

Applying the three-stage Grant test, the court found the police conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum due to mistaken beliefs about their powers and obligations, and the impact on the applicant's Charter-protected interests was also high, particularly given his intoxicated state and prior experiences as a racialized male.

Despite the reliability and importance of the evidence to the Crown's case, the court concluded that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was therefore excluded.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to one count of child luring and two counts of possession of child pornography arising from online sexual communications with a 16-year-old complainant and the storage of child sexual abuse material involving multiple young persons.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, relying on post-Friesen sentencing principles and the inherent harm identified in Sharpe.

It treated the offender's guilty plea, lack of record, difficult personal history, and four years on restrictive bail as mitigating factors, but found the quantity of images, the age disparity, the deception used online, and the exploitation of vulnerable minors to be significant aggravating factors.

A global sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed, together with SOIRA registration, forfeiture, DNA, s. 161 prohibitions, and a no-contact order.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of the accused's statements to police, ante-mortem statements of the deceased, and character evidence.

The court found the accused's statements were voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The deceased's statement 'No, it's my brother' was admitted for state of mind but not for its truth.

The court also allowed some evidence of the deceased's prior violent acts to support the accused's self-defence claim, while permitting the Crown to lead balancing evidence of the accused's disposition for violence.