J. Berman

The court sentenced Jordan James O’Brien-Tobin to life imprisonment with 18 years of parole ineligibility for the second degree murder of Gabriel Magalhaes, a 16-year-old stranger, at a Toronto subway station.

The decision details the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the random and brutal nature of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim’s family and community, the offender’s extensive criminal record, and his personal and mental health background.

The court found that the protection of society, denunciation, and deterrence required a period of parole ineligibility above the statutory minimum.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking offences following a mass arrest operation, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 10(b), and 12 rights.

She claimed excessive force upon arrest, inhumane treatment during a lengthy wait in a police cruiser, and an unlawful strip search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony regarding pain and suffering to be fabricated and contradicted by video evidence.

The court held that the police conduct was reasonable under the circumstances of the mass arrests, and the strip search was justified as the applicant was entering the prison population.

The defendants were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking after a police officer pulled over their vehicle for a suspended license, discovered they were on conditions not to associate, arrested them, and found drugs during an inventory search of the car.

The defendants brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence.

The court found multiple violations of both defendants' rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention, unlawful questioning, failure to promptly advise of reasons for detention and right to counsel, and an unlawful inventory search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breaches were serious and significantly impacted the defendants' rights, warranting the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with break and enter and commit robbery with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, possession of a firearm while subject to a weapons prohibition order, and three counts of breach of probation.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and the accused elected trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a robbery.

While the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies regarding the details of the alleged robbery, the court found the accused guilty of break and enter and commit assault, uttering threats, and breaching two probation orders.

The court dismissed the robbery charges due to insufficient evidence and credibility concerns with the complainant's account.

The applicant bank paid funds into court following the demise of a payroll processing company.

The company had mistakenly overpaid the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to a shortfall in its mixed trust accounts.

The court had to determine whether the remaining interpleaded funds should be distributed to claimants on a pro rata basis or by tracing specific funds to specific claimants.

The court held that the funds were held in a mixed trust account and, applying the pari passu ex post facto pro rata approach, ordered the funds to be distributed pro rata among all claimants.

An accused charged with impaired driving and over 80 brought an application for a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

The Crown opposed, arguing that since the accused faced only a fine and not incarceration, the application should be dismissed.

The court held that the absence of a jail sentence does not preclude an order for state-funded counsel where counsel is essential to a fair trial.

The court found the accused was indigent with no other means to retain counsel, and that counsel was essential given the complexity of the case (including issues regarding the two-hour limit for breath samples, potential statement voir dire, and a medical defence) and the accused's severe health issues that would impair his ability to participate effectively in his defence.

The proceedings were conditionally stayed pending provision of state-funded counsel.

The court provided directions in an interpleader proceeding concerning funds paid into court following the cessation of payroll services operations by a corporate respondent.

Approximately $2.39 million held in a payroll account had been paid into court, and an advisor was appointed to administer claims by numerous clients asserting entitlement to the funds.

The advisor reported that a portion of the fund could be traced to specific claimants while the remainder was co‑mingled and proposed a distribution allocating traceable funds to identified clients and the balance pro rata.

The court directed further reporting, service of materials to claimants, and procedures for claimants to file notices of appearance and submissions regarding the proposed distribution.

A further hearing was scheduled to determine whether the proposed distribution or an alternative should be approved.