Jason Gorda

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a stranger in an LCBO parking lot following a verbal dispute over social distancing.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the public nature of the shooting and the devastating impact on the victim's family, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 14-year period of parole ineligibility, along with mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA, and non-communication orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of his nephew, causing catastrophic injuries resulting in permanent quadriplegia and confinement to a wheelchair.

The court imposed a sentence of 7½ years (90 months) less a day, with credit for 5½ years (66 months) of pre-sentence custody, leaving 2 years less a day to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court balanced the devastating and life-altering nature of the victim's injuries against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, sincere remorse, difficult upbringing, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

A 19-year-old young person (Z.S.) was sentenced for first-degree murder committed when he was 16 years old.

The victim, Javonte Daley, was shot and killed on June 8, 2022, in a targeted shooting involving three assailants.

Z.S. pleaded guilty and admitted full participation in the murder.

The Crown initially sought an adult sentence but withdrew that position after receiving a psychological assessment.

The court imposed an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) order for nine years (five years in custody at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and four years in the community under conditional supervision), with a one-year credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentence reflects Z.S.'s significant mental health challenges, traumatic background, demonstrated remorse, and rehabilitation progress while balancing accountability and public protection.

The court sentenced Emmanuel Kitenge, who pled guilty to manslaughter and failing to stop for police, for his role as a getaway driver in a fatal shooting.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kitenge’s youth, lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, and significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less one day for manslaughter (with credit for pre-sentence custody), a concurrent nine-month sentence for failing to stop for police, probation, and ancillary orders.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a stolen vehicle valued over $5,000 by Kamran Mughal, who pled guilty to one count amidst a broader investigation into vehicle trafficking.

The court carefully considered the joint submission for a conditional sentence of six months, balancing the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s lack of prior record, and his recent severe gunshot injuries.

The court declined to consider additional aggravating facts read into the record due to the defence’s successful application to exclude them.

The decision highlights the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on joint submissions and sentencing principles, including proportionality, judicial restraint, and individualized sentencing.

The sentence imposed includes house arrest, curfew, GPS monitoring, and probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and avoidance of the offence location.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after shooting the victim in a liquor store parking lot following a brief verbal altercation over social distancing.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, arguing that a combination of provocation (a racial slur and a brandished knife) and marijuana intoxication negated the specific intent for murder.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, finding that he deliberately followed the victim out of the store with a drawn, illegal handgun to confront him.

The court held that the Crown disproved the defences of provocation and intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty of second-degree murder.

The applicant, Terrell Als, sought a stay of charges under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The total time from arrest to the scheduled completion of trial was 1505 days, exceeding the 910-day presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant portions to defence delay (due to change of counsel and counsel's calendar unavailability) and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 court closures, Crown counsel's family emergency, and unforeseen judicial unavailability).

The court found that the Crown and court made reasonable efforts to mitigate delays.

Ultimately, the application was dismissed, as the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, did not exceed the Jordan threshold.

The offender, a 53-year-old biological father, was convicted of multiple offences including incest, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and making child pornography against his 15-to-17-year-old daughter.

The abuse resulted in the daughter giving birth to a child fathered by the offender.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the resulting pregnancy, and the offender's lack of remorse and attempts to blame his son.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 12 years in a federal penitentiary, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the separation of the offender from society.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce a video chronology prepared by police.

The chronology compiled still shots from extensive surveillance video, adding identifying information, circles, arrows, and short neutral descriptions.

The defence objected, arguing the video itself is the only admissible evidence and the chronology amounted to Crown advocacy.

The court ruled the video chronology admissible as a demonstrative aid to assist the jury in comprehending voluminous and complex video evidence.

The court held that such summaries are permissible if they are neutral, introduced through a witness who can be cross-examined, and accompanied by limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused were charged with first-degree murder.

At the outset of the trial, two of the accused brought an application to exclude cellphone video recordings showing them celebrating at a nightclub hours after the shooting, arguing the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The Crown argued the videos were probative of their relationship, their presence together after the shooting, and their state of mind.

The court found the videos highly probative of the accused's identity, relationship, and state of mind, and concluded that the probative value strongly outweighed any general prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the videos were ruled admissible subject to agreed-upon editing.

During a trial for first degree murder, the Crown brought an application to adduce a post-arrest statement made by the accused to the police.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the legal advice he received from duty counsel and his own lawyer.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused was advised of his rights multiple times, spoke to counsel three times, and clearly understood the advice.

The court also ruled the statement was admissible in the Crown's case-in-chief, as there was independent evidence of fabrication to support its use as after-the-fact conduct evidence.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, break and enter, and firearms offences following a home invasion.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the offence and the offender's prior record for armed robbery, balanced against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by inadequate medical care for a urological issue.

The court accepted the joint submission of a 6.5-year global sentence and, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, sentenced the offender to a further 18 months in custody.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their jury trial.

The court balanced fair trial considerations against courtroom security.

Given that the accused were detained in custody, had histories of institutional misconduct, and there was hostility between the co-accused, the court found that security concerns outweighed the potential prejudice of sitting in the dock.

The application was dismissed.

The three accused were jointly charged with first-degree murder.

One of the accused gave a post-arrest video statement to the police implicating himself and his co-accused.

The accused brought pre-trial applications to redact portions of the statement, and two of the accused alternatively sought to sever their trials.

The court granted the redactions consented to by the Crown but refused further redactions, finding the contested portions highly probative of the maker's involvement and credibility.

The court dismissed the application for severance, holding that the strong policy preference for joint trials applied and that a mid-trial and final jury instruction would adequately cure any reasoning prejudice to the co-accused.

The Crown brought an application at the outset of a first-degree murder trial to admit six utterances made by the deceased shortly after being shot.

The court analyzed the admissibility of the statements under the dying declaration exception, the spontaneous utterance exception, and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that while only the statements made to police qualified as dying declarations, all six utterances were admissible as spontaneous utterances and under the principled approach to hearsay, as the pressure of the shooting excluded the possibility of concoction or distortion.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual exploitation, incest, making child pornography, possession of child pornography, and threatening bodily harm arising from prolonged sexual abuse of his daughter between ages 15 and 17.

The court relied heavily on expert DNA evidence establishing that the accused was the biological father of the complainant’s child and rejected speculative alternative theories.

The court also accepted expert cellphone extraction evidence proving that sexually explicit photographs of the complainant were made and stored on the accused’s phone.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework and Villaroman principles for circumstantial evidence, the court found the complainant credible, rejected the accused’s denials, and entered convictions on all counts.

During a trial for sexual offences including incest, the accused brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

The defence sought to introduce this evidence to dispute the paternity of the complainant's child.

Although the defence failed to provide the required seven days' notice, the court allowed the application to proceed in the interests of justice.

The Crown conceded the admissibility of the evidence for the purpose of exploring alternative paternity.

The court granted the application and permitted a strictly circumscribed set of questions regarding the complainant's sexual activity with her boyfriend.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown's case relied on strong circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and surveillance video, suggesting the accused lured the victim to a meeting where he was shot by a co-accused.

The court found the accused met the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record, and the proposed sureties, including his mother in whose home loaded handguns were found, were deemed incapable of supervising him.

The court also held that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

Mohammed Hakimzadah was convicted of five counts of counselling the commission of offences not committed, including two counts of counselling murder (his wife and her family law lawyer), counselling trafficking cocaine, counselling transferring a firearm, and counselling public mischief.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature of the offences, the targeting of a justice system participant (the lawyer), and the psychological harm to the victims.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, prior pro-social life, and deteriorating health in custody.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 9 years, with pre-sentence credit for 6 years, resulting in a further 3 years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and a non-communication order with his wife and daughters during his sentence.

The accused was charged with five counts of counselling the commission of offences that were not committed, including counselling the murder of his wife, planting a gun and drugs in her car, and the murder of her family lawyer.

The Crown's case relied heavily on recordings of the accused's conversations with a police agent and an undercover officer posing as a hitman.

The accused claimed the police altered the recordings to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding the recordings accurate and the accused's claims baseless.

The court found the accused guilty on all five counts, concluding he actively induced the undercover officer to commit the offences and intended for them to be carried out.