Jay Lawton Spare

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Khalila Mohammed for being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter under s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered her youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and cooperation with authorities, alongside the serious nature of the offence and her active role in assisting the principal offender post-shooting.

After reviewing relevant case law and sentencing principles, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of 529 days, including house arrest and community service, emphasizing rehabilitation and restraint while ensuring denunciation and deterrence.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a laptop and subsequent searches conducted under warrants for a vehicle and inmate property.

The court found the warrantless laptop search to be a serious Charter breach due to reckless disregard for rights, leading to the exclusion of observations made from the laptop.

However, evidence obtained from the search of a vehicle and the applicant's inmate property vault, which were conducted under warrants, was admitted.

The court reasoned that the connection between the initial laptop breach and the subsequent warrant searches was attenuated, the privacy expectation in the vehicle was minimal, and the evidence from the vehicle was independently discoverable.

Dallas Ly was found guilty of second-degree murder of his mother.

This ruling determines his parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the offender's character, jury recommendations, and sentencing objectives.

Aggravating factors included the brutal domestic homicide, desecration of remains by decapitation, and discarding the body by the roadside.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, undiagnosed mental health issues, and rehabilitation potential.

The court set the parole ineligibility period at 13 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

David Hercules was found guilty of four counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentencing was delayed due to administrative errors and legal uncertainty regarding conditional sentences, which was resolved by the enactment of Bill C-5.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court denied a discharge, emphasizing the public interest in denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes.

Balancing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the harm caused with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, first-time offender status, and the legislative intent of Bill C-5 to address systemic over-incarceration, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a weapon prohibition.

The applicants sought the return of seized cash and property under s. 490(9)(c) of the Criminal Code after the initial detention order expired.

The police seized $43,390 CAD and $2 USD, along with a Louis Vuitton pouch and hat, during an inventory search following a drinking and driving investigation.

The applicants provided affidavits asserting lawful ownership, with one applicant claiming the majority of the cash as rental income and the other claiming a smaller portion and the personal items.

Despite suspicious circumstances noted by the Crown regarding the money's storage and the vehicle's VIN, the court found the applicants' unchallenged evidence of lawful ownership on a balance of probabilities to be credible.

The application for the return of property was granted.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Jayson Pothier, an Indigenous offender who pleaded guilty to serious charges including robbery, break and enter, and theft.

The court applied Gladue principles, considering the offender's extensive criminal record, which included prior penitentiary sentences for similar offences, alongside his profound history of childhood trauma and addiction.

The judge emphasized the systemic factors contributing to Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system and the need for a restorative approach.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional sentence, focusing on the offender's commitment to recovery and the availability of community supports, rather than a further period of incarceration.

Michael Hennesy pleaded guilty to assault following a racist verbal and physical attack on a Chinese student on a bus during the early pandemic.

The victim experienced significant emotional distress.

The court considered Hennesy's tragic personal history, including childhood trauma, addiction, and a lack of prior criminal record, as mitigating factors.

However, the racist nature of the assault and its broader societal impact were deemed aggravating.

The judge imposed a four-month conditional sentence of imprisonment, followed by one year of probation, emphasizing the need to denounce racist conduct despite the offender's personal circumstances.

Antonio Sampogna was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including trafficking a non-restricted firearm and possession of restricted and prohibited firearms without valid certificates.

Despite being a 57-year-old first offender with a pro-social background, the court emphasized the paramount importance of general deterrence and denunciation due to the serious nature of firearms offences.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 6-7 years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of 3-6 months.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need to send a clear message regarding illegal firearms.

A global sentence of five years in penitentiary was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

The offender pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a restricted firearm, knowingly unauthorized possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order.

The offender was shot at in a restaurant while dining with his wife and carried a loaded handgun for protection.

He was arrested and held in pre-sentence custody for approximately 21 months at Toronto South Detention Centre, during which he experienced extensive lockdowns (approximately 410 days out of 620 days).

The court imposed a sentence of two years in federal penitentiary followed by three years of probation, considering both the gravity of the offences and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, particularly the systemic lockdowns caused by chronic understaffing.

The applicant sought to exclude his post-arrest statement, arguing a Charter breach due to police questioning about a separate homicide without re-advising him of his right to counsel, constituting a change in jeopardy.

The court found no obligation for further advice as the applicant was not a suspect in the second homicide, understood his rights, and was offered further consultation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, finding a net delay of 31.25 months, which slightly exceeded the presumptive ceiling.

However, the court identified a transitional exceptional circumstance, noting the applicant's significant delay in filing the stay application after the release of Jordan, indicating reliance on pre-Jordan principles.

Additionally, a Morin analysis was conducted, attributing substantial periods of delay to the defence's conduct, particularly regarding counsel retainer issues.

The institutional delay was found to be well within acceptable guidelines.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of a violent rivalry between two criminal groups, the Asian Assassinz and the Chin Pac, to establish motive and intention in a first-degree murder trial.

The respondent, alleged to be associated with the Chin Pac, was charged with the murder of an individual associated with the Asian Assassinz.

The defence opposed the admission of this evidence, citing prejudicial impact and lack of probative value.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding its probative value on motive and intention outweighed its prejudicial effect, provided appropriate limiting instructions were given to the jury.

The accused, a customer service representative for Service Ontario, was charged with breach of trust under Criminal Code s. 122 for unlawfully permitting private information to be made available to unauthorized persons.

The Crown established through forensic analysis that the accused conducted multiple database inquiries regarding license plates that appeared on documents and phones seized from gang members involved in Project Battery, a multi-police force investigation into rival street gangs.

The accused's testimony that she was too busy to notice who was in front of her, that rogue operators may have conducted some transactions, or that she was merely confirming identities was rejected as self-serving and contrived.

The court found a consistent and disturbing pattern of cancelled transactions involving data licensing changes that resulted in the release of registered owners' names and addresses to unauthorized persons, including inquiries regarding a detective's personal vehicle with no legitimate purpose.

The court found the accused guilty of breach of trust.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in multiple controlled substances and possession of property obtained by crime following his arrest at a condominium apartment during a large-scale police operation targeting gang members.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed significant quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, hashish, ecstasy, oxycodone, and cash.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the police entry and search, arguing violations of Charter rights.

The court found the initial police entry was justified by exigent circumstances and the search warrant was validly obtained.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge of and possession of drugs found inside a nightstand drawer and in a closet, acquitting on most counts while convicting on possession of marijuana found on top of the nightstand and related proceeds of crime.

The offender was sentenced after conviction for importing cocaine into Canada and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police surveillance and intercepted communications established that the offender coordinated with another individual to import approximately 600 grams of cocaine from Panama for distribution.

The court considered the sentencing ranges established in appellate authorities for cocaine importation and trafficking, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

Although the offender expressed remorse and had some rehabilitative prospects, aggravating factors included a prior drug conviction, commission of the offence while on probation, and participation for financial gain.

The court imposed concurrent penitentiary sentences of five years for each offence, reduced to 4 years and 6 months after credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, together with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with importation of cocaine into Canada and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied primarily on intercepted telephone communications, surveillance evidence, and seizure of drug packaging and cocaine to establish participation in a common criminal design to import cocaine from Panama.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the accused’s voice in the intercepted calls and failed to prove knowledge of the package contents.

The court accepted voice identification evidence, found the co‑conspirators’ exception to the hearsay rule applied, and concluded that the intercepted calls, surveillance observations, and surrounding circumstantial evidence established the accused’s knowledge and participation.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the importation and trafficking scheme.