James N. Frost

The 14-year-old accused pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for shooting a victim during a coordinated attack on an apartment complex.

The Crown sought a conviction for first-degree murder, arguing the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court found that while the overall shooting was planned, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused planned and deliberated the specific murder of the randomly encountered victim.

The brief timeframe, the accused's youth, and the chaotic circumstances left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The 77-year-old accused stabbed and killed his apartment building manager and wounded the manager's wife, driven by a delusional belief that the manager was having an affair with the accused's wife and was mocking him.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Relying on the expert evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, the court found that the accused suffered from Delusional Disorder which rendered him incapable of rationally applying his general understanding of moral wrongfulness to his specific circumstances.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, and was remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sanction for Dylan Larios-Bonilla, a registered massage therapist found guilty of sexual assault involving a patient.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust as a healthcare provider and the victim's vulnerability, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of prior record, positive rehabilitative prospects, and community support.

The court analyzed relevant case law and principles, particularly the availability and appropriateness of a conditional sentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, a 15-month strict conditional sentence, a 2-year probation order, a DNA order, and a 10-year SOIRA order were imposed, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The defendant, a registered massage therapist, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that during a massage session for lower back pain, the defendant engaged in non-consensual touching of her buttocks, exposed himself, and ejaculated on her leg.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the defendant's inconsistent and implausible explanations for his actions and the state of his clothing.

The court concluded that the defendant's conduct, including unzipping his pants and placing his hand on his penis while massaging the complainant's buttocks, demonstrated a sexual purpose.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault.

Abdirashid Adam was found guilty of manslaughter after a jury trial for the shooting death of Jovanh McKnollys.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the planned confrontation, the use of a concealed, loaded firearm with an obliterated serial number, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the offender's educational and employment history, good rehabilitative prospects, genuine remorse, harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his life experiences, particularly his decision to carry a firearm for safety.

The court emphasized that while social context evidence could mitigate the offender's responsibility, it did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

Deterrence and denunciation were deemed paramount.

The Crown sought 11 years, and the defence sought 5 years.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and incest arising from historical sexual abuse of the offender's daughter between ages 8 and 11, the court imposed sentence.

The court found repeated grooming, escalating abuse including oral sex and sexual intercourse, a profound parental breach of trust, serious long-term victim and family harm, and a highly aggravating prior similar conviction involving another young child.

Applying contemporary sentencing guidance for child sexual offences, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and that the Kienapple principle did not bar multiple convictions because different incidents grounded the counts.

A total sentence of 11 years was imposed, reduced by 11 months' pre-sentence custody credit, together with DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, child-contact prohibition, and custodial no-contact orders.

Ian Bullens was found guilty after trial by jury of offering to transfer a firearm and subsequently found guilty by judge alone of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered his extensive criminal record, prior firearm offences, and acknowledged opiate addiction.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years, while the defence proposed 4.5 to 5.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, which was reduced to 5 years and 8 months after applying 22 months of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition and a DNA collection order.

The appellant appealed her conviction for trafficking heroin and possession of the proceeds of crime, as well as her sentence of 26 months imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on three grounds: that the Crown had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that the trial judge engaged in impermissible speculation rather than permissible inference, and that the trial judge failed to consider contrary evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's inferences from circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, the appellant's brief presence in the target's vehicle, and the possession of cash and heroin, were reasonable and not speculative.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

An application by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Dr. Jennifer Nguyen for the committal of a 16-year-old youth (JS) to the secure treatment program at Syl Apps for 180 days.

The youth had experienced significant trauma, including the death of her biological mother by overdose and a knife-point robbery.

She suffered from multiple mental health disorders and had made numerous suicide attempts.

The parents and Syl Apps administrator consented to the order, but the youth opposed it.

The court found that all five criteria under section 117(1) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, but reduced the committal term to 90 days due to insufficient evidence regarding the length of commitment and the absence of a discharge plan.

In the context of a dangerous offender application, the applicant (Robertson) sought to exclude expert reports (de Munnik, Marshall, and Woodside) on grounds that they constituted personal health records unlawfully obtained by the Crown.

The court found that the consents signed by Robertson as a young offender were limited in scope and duration, and did not authorize disclosure to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Given the conflicting information provided to Robertson regarding confidentiality and the lack of legal advice at the time, the court ruled that the reports of de Munnik and Marshall were not lawfully obtained.

Consequently, Dr. Woodside's report, which relied on these inadmissible reports, was also excluded.

The Crown was directed to propose a new expert assessor.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable based on differences in transaction methodology, lack of exclusive opportunity, and logistical improbability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of different methodologies, noting the appellant was caught on video misappropriating funds and had the victim's PIN, and concluding the logistics pointed to the appellant rather than anyone else.

The offenders, two brothers with extensive criminal records, pleaded guilty to five counts of break and enter and theft involving commercial stores.

They used stolen vehicles to ram through store entrances and steal merchandise.

The court weighed their lengthy records, drug addictions, and the aggravating factor of the younger brother being on probation.

The older brother was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and the younger to 50 months, both receiving 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and make a breath demand, asserting the officer only had a suspicion.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officer's observations of the appellant's driving, behaviour, and physical symptoms provided an objectively reasonable basis to believe his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.