Iryna Katharine Revutsky

The Crown brought a motion for a mental health assessment of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The assessment was sought under sections 672.11(b) and 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder under section 16(1).

The accused opposed the application, arguing his psychotic episodes were drug-induced.

The court, reviewing a psychiatric assessment, found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility on account of a mental disorder, noting that a diagnosis of "Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified" suggested a potential underlying mental health issue beyond drug-induced psychosis.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the assessment.

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 accused brought two pre-trial applications in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

First, he sought production of complainants’ therapeutic and medical records under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.

Second, he sought permission under s. 276 to cross‑examine the complainants regarding prior sexual assaults committed by another individual, arguing it was relevant to testing the reliability of their memories.

The court held the defence failed to demonstrate that the requested third‑party records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, emphasizing the strong privacy interests in therapeutic records and the prohibition on speculative fishing expeditions.

However, limited cross‑examination regarding the other assaults was permitted solely to test memory and reliability, not to invoke the prohibited “twin myths.”

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, using an imitation firearm during robbery, and being masked with intent arising from two violent carjackings.

In both incidents, victims were abducted at gunpoint, confined in the trunks of their vehicles, threatened with death, and forced to reveal banking PINs while offenders withdrew funds from ATMs.

The court considered principles of denunciation and deterrence while balancing the accused’s youth, lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and personal circumstances including trauma and mental health concerns.

Parity with the sentence imposed on a co‑accused involved in multiple related carjackings was examined, along with sentencing jurisprudence regarding serious robberies.

The court determined that a lower sentence than the co‑accused was appropriate given the offender’s age, absence of record, and demonstrated remorse.