Ivana Denisov

The defendant was charged with attempted robbery of an electronics store.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including security footage showing a masked individual attempting to enter the store, followed by a police pursuit and dynamic takedown of the suspect vehicle.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual in the footage based on a constellation of distinctive clothing features.

The court also concluded that the defendant's actions of wearing a balaclava and gloves on a hot day, covering a clothing logo with tape, and tugging on the locked store door established the requisite mens rea and constituted acts beyond mere preparation.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm, fentanyl, and cocaine.

He had loaned his vehicle to another individual knowing it would be used for drug trafficking and that a firearm was involved.

The Crown sought a seven-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was available and appropriate given the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, his compliance with strict house arrest bail for 40 months, his employment, and the impact a custodial sentence would have on his children.

A conditional sentence of two years less six days was imposed, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was tried on two counts of sexual interference involving two child complainants connected to a sports camp.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework, rejected the accused's exculpatory evidence, and found both complainants credible and reliable, with their accounts supported by disclosure witnesses and circumstantial evidence.

The Crown's application to use the allegations as similar fact evidence was dismissed because the incidents lacked sufficient connecting features to establish probative value under Handy.

Nevertheless, on a count-by-count assessment, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused touched each complainant for a sexual purpose and entered convictions on both counts.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing Romario Watts and Lamar Bartley following their convictions for multiple armed robberies and related offences.

Watts was found guilty of six armed robberies, six counts of masking, one attempted armed robbery, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

Bartley was found guilty of one armed robbery, one count of masking, and several motor vehicle offences related to fleeing police.

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, emphasizing the seriousness of firearm offences.

Aggravating factors for Watts included the number of robberies, use of a loaded firearm, and planning.

Mitigating factors for Watts were his age and lack of criminal record.

For Bartley, mitigating factors included his role (not armed) and surrender, while aggravating factors included the dangerous flight from police.

The court also considered pre-trial custody credits and potential immigration consequences for Bartley.

Watts received a global sentence of 12 years, and Bartley received a global sentence of 5 years and 3 months.

The applicant, Elijah Jacques-Taylor, sought a stay of serious firearms charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the information being sworn (November 18, 2021) to the anticipated trial date (October 2-4, 2023) was 22 months and 2 weeks.

The court deducted one month for defence counsel's unavailability and three months for the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 backlog, resulting in a net delay of 18 months and 2 weeks.

This period exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

As the Crown conceded there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the necessary remedy.

The defendant, Anoop Kumar Ubbu, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The trial focused on whether the complainant, JY, consented to sexual activity and whether the defendant had an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found JY to be a credible witness who did not consent to any sexual activity with the defendant or other individuals.

The defendant's claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent was rejected due to his failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault.

In a multi-accused pre-trial Charter motion arising from a violent home invasion and related firearms and conspiracy allegations, the applicants sought excision of Home Depot records, Instagram-derived identification evidence, tower dump material, and Part VI interceptions.

The court held the applicants lacked standing to challenge the Home Depot records and store surveillance, and that the private Instagram account did not attract an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

The court further upheld the tower dump authorization under s. 487.015 of the Criminal Code, found the subsequent subscriber query authorized, and rejected claims that the ITO relied on speculation.

Applying Garofoli and Araujo, the court concluded that, after amplification and excision, the Part VI authorization still had sufficient grounds and satisfied investigative necessity.

The motion was dismissed, with remaining search issues relating to later searches to be addressed separately.

Krsna Singh was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Police responded to a Crimestoppers tip about an impaired driver, located the vehicle at Singh's residence, and made an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, which Singh refused.

Singh challenged the lawfulness of his detention and the ASD demand, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention), 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no Charter violations, distinguishing the case from R. v. McColman by noting the police had reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving based on the specific tip.

The court also found the police acted within their ancillary powers and that Singh was promptly informed of his detention reasons and that his right to counsel was not violated, as he was released as soon as practicable.

Consequently, the court found Singh guilty of the offence.

The defendant, Daniel Reza, was convicted of six offences including assault, assault with a weapon, multiple sexual assaults (some involving penetration while the victim was asleep or incapacitated by marijuana), and threatening to kill the victim's father.

The offences occurred within a domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the domestic context, repeated manipulation, the victim's vulnerability (asleep), use of an object, and lasting impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and mental health/addiction issues.

The Crown sought a six-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed two years.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 4.5 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued ancillary orders including a no-contact order, DNA order, SOIRA order, and s. 109 order.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-defendants, applied for a separate trial.

He argued that a joint trial would be unfair because the Crown intended to adduce intercepted conversations involving his co-defendants that were inadmissible against him but potentially prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the intercepts did not directly incriminate the applicant and that any risk of prejudice could be managed through limiting instructions.

The court concluded that the pragmatic benefits of a joint trial outweighed the potential prejudice.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with bail conditions requiring him to reside at a specified address in Kleinburg and remain within that residence at all times unless in the presence of his surety or attending court on a specific matter in Scarborough.

Police attended the residence to conduct a bail compliance check and were informed by the surety and his wife that the accused was not present.

The accused did not present himself during the half-hour visit.

The defence conceded the Crown proved the bail conditions and identification but argued the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not in the residence.

The court found the Crown proved guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in breach of his recognizance.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a minor collision at a gas station and subsequent erratic driving on Highway 404.

A civilian witness observed the accused stumble when exiting his vehicle at the gas station and subsequently followed the vehicle on the highway, observing consistent swerving and lane violations.

Police officers observed similar driving deficiencies and noted physical signs of impairment including red eyes, slurred speech, unsteadiness, and an odour of alcohol.

The accused testified he consumed only two or three light beers over eight hours and attributed his driving errors to distraction from a following vehicle with flashing lights.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and convicted him based on the consistent observations of the civilian witness and two police officers, corroborated by in-car video evidence.

The accused was tried on a sexual assault charge arising from sexual activity at an after-prom party.

The central issues were consent and whether the accused honestly but mistakenly believed there was communicated consent.

The court found both the complainant and the accused generally credible and reliable, and concluded the conflicting accounts could not be resolved in favour of the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record, substance abuse disorder, and ADHD diagnosis, alongside his guilty plea and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a total sentence of 35.5 months, granting standard pre-sentence credit at 1.5:1 and enhanced credit at 2:1 for days spent in lockdown due to harsh conditions, leaving 4 months to serve followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person (the niece of his wife) following a trial.

The offences occurred on July 29, 2017, during a backyard barbeque at the accused's residence.

The first incident involved touching over clothing while the victim was lying down in the basement; the second involved digital penetration in the living room later that evening.

The accused was in a position of trust toward the victim.

At sentencing, the accused absconded to Brazil, and sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the sexual assault convictions as duplicitous with the sexual exploitation convictions.

The accused received a global sentence of 10 months imprisonment with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition, DNA designation, SOIRA registration, and probation conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

He drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, causing a head-on collision with a 79-year-old victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including a shattered hip and femur, broken ribs, fractured shoulder and neck, and a brain injury.

The offender's blood alcohol concentration was approximately twice the legal limit.

The offender was a first-time offender with strong character references and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 14 months custody, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing objectives despite significant mitigating factors.

The defendant brought a motion for mistrial based on a reasonable apprehension of bias after observing the trial judge reading from a document marked "Confidential Draft" during final argument.

The defendant argued that the presence of such a document indicated the judge had predetermined the outcome and that the judge's refusal to disclose the document's contents constituted bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that trial judges have no obligation to disclose their notes or preliminary rulings to counsel, and that preparing draft reasons prior to or during submissions does not constitute bias provided the judge remains receptive to counsel's arguments.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operation with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop on November 26, 2016.

The Crown called two police officers and filed an expert toxicologist report.

The defence raised multiple Charter violations relating to the roadside breath sample procedure and the right to counsel.

The court found two Charter violations under section 10(b) but admitted the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted of the over 80 charge but acquitted of the impaired driving charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The accused, a personal support worker, pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault against vulnerable, severely disabled residents of a group home.

The offences came to light only after the accused voluntarily confessed to the police.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to seven years' imprisonment, reduced to four years net after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, noting the egregious breach of trust balanced against the mitigating factors of the voluntary confession and guilty pleas.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a motor vehicle accident on Highway 400.

A police constable administered an approved screening device (ASD) test which the accused failed, leading to arrest and subsequent breathalyzer tests showing a blood alcohol content well over the legal limit.

The accused challenged the validity of the ASD test on Charter grounds, arguing that the device had not been properly calibrated within the required 15-day interval and that the officer lacked objective grounds for reliance on the test result.

The court found a section 8 Charter violation, excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, and acquitted the accused.