Ismar Horic

Ezekel Vincent pleaded guilty to manslaughter after initially being charged with second-degree murder.

The charge stemmed from Vincent fatally shooting Kenroy Benjamin, who had just killed Vincent's friend, Sheldon Taylor, at a banquet hall.

The court determined that Vincent brought the handgun to the scene.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors, including the use of a prohibited firearm in a public place, the pursuit and close-range shooting of the victim, and the non-recovery of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included Vincent's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, difficult upbringing, experience with racial discrimination, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed an 11-year sentence, reduced to 10 years due to harsh custody conditions, and further reduced by 30 months for pre-trial credit, resulting in a net sentence of 7.5 years.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The defendant, Wilfredo Hernandez, faced multiple criminal charges, some of which he pled guilty to (dangerous driving, driving while prohibited, evading police) and others proceeded to trial (uttering threats, break and enter, taking a child in contravention of a custody order, threat to cause death to child).

The court assessed witness credibility, including the complainant's attempt to influence another witness.

The defendant was found not guilty of taking a motor vehicle without consent and break and enter a dwelling house.

He was found guilty of uttering threats to the complainant, taking the child in contravention of a custody order, and threatening to cause death to the child.

The court emphasized the intent to deprive the custodial parent of possession of the child.

The applicant sought a review of his bail detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the detaining justice erred in law due to technical difficulties during the hearing and by relying on his COVID-19 diagnosis, and alternatively that his subsequent negative test and new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no error in law as the applicant was detained on secondary grounds due to numerous serious breaches of court orders and a lengthy criminal record.

The court also found the proposed release plan lacked adequate supervision and did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and failure to comply with probation.

The complainant alleged non-consensual sexual activity, while the defendant claimed consent or an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, who presented as highly excitable and inconsistent, and other witnesses whose testimony was found unreliable or influenced.

The court noted ambiguities in the evidence, including text messages that did not explicitly accuse sexual impropriety.

Given the inconsistencies and the complainant's demeanor, the court found that the Crown had not proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was a reasonable possibility that the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

The defendant, C.C., charged with sexual assault, brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant about other sexual activity between them.

The defence sought to adduce evidence regarding the nature of their sexual relationship, shared use of the washroom, and the complainant's disclosures about past sexual assaults impacting her communication of consent.

The court applied the two-stage test under s. 276(2) and (3), considering the relevance to an honest but mistaken belief in consent and the probative value versus prejudice.

The court permitted cross-examination on the existence of a sexual relationship, shared washroom history, and the complainant's communication about how past experiences affected her consent communication, finding these relevant to the defendant's understanding of consent and not unduly prejudicial.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

However, the court found several periods of delay were attributable to the defence, including time taken to retain counsel, scheduling conflicts for a joint preliminary hearing, and a late request for disclosure that delayed committal.

After deducting the defence delay, the remaining delay for both applicants fell below the 30-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, cocaine, and MDMA, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offender became addicted to heroin after being prescribed Oxycontin for a back injury.

The court considered the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts, lack of prior criminal record, and the fact that he was a street-level seller servicing his own addiction.

The court imposed a global sentence of 33 months in custody, balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence with the offender's lower moral culpability and excellent prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused, Christopher Saccoccia, brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence seized from his condominium unit, alleging that the search warrant was issued without reasonable grounds and based on misrepresentations in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court reviewed the ITO, found that an alleged misrepresentation regarding "observation" was not a misrepresentation, and an inaccuracy in the number of visits was a mistake that did not vitiate the warrant.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the known drug dealing of an associate, the use of an adjacent unit as a stash house, and the ongoing association between the accused and the associate, the court found sufficient grounds for the warrant.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Christopher Saccoccia, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charges to anticipated trial end was 35.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued for defence delay, case complexity (part of a large "Project Battery" investigation with 112 accused, including a joint Garofoli application), and the transitional exception under Jordan.

The court found 7 months of delay attributable to the applicant's failure to retain counsel and an additional 6 months due to the complex Garofoli application involving multiple parties.

With these deductions, the net delay fell within the 30-month ceiling.

Furthermore, the court applied the transitional exception, noting the parties' reasonable reliance on the pre-Jordan Morin framework.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, Mohamed Taha, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case on charges of accessory after the fact to robbery, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's presence near the driver's door of the getaway vehicle and a rental agreement in his name found inside.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could infer that the applicant was the driver.