Jennifer K. Penman

The applicant brought a Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a firearm.

The warrants were based almost entirely on tips from two confidential informants, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted to protect their identities.

The court found that the police failed to adequately corroborate the informants' tips and lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe a firearm would be found at the target address.

Concluding that the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated, the court applied the Grant framework and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2).

The defendant, O'Neal Spalding, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to a fatal shooting during a planned home invasion robbery.

The Crown sought a 14-15 year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years or time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned armed home invasion, the defendant's leadership role, his criminal record, and the devastating victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, difficult background, experience of racism, mental health issues, and strong community support.

The court also addressed the impact of pre-sentence custody conditions, including lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 years in custody, less 1449 days for pre-sentence credit, along with a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The accused, a transgender woman, was charged with assault with a weapon, multiple counts of assault with intent to resist arrest, mischief, and breach of probation following an altercation outside a store and her subsequent arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police under sections 7 and 12.

The court reviewed extensive body-worn camera footage and civilian testimony, rejecting the accused's claims of self-defence and police brutality.

The court found the police used reasonable and proportionate force to effect a lawful arrest against an actively resisting individual.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one count of assaulting a police officer.

The appellant, Rayon Williams, appealed his convictions for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, raising three grounds: errors in finding no ss. 9 and 8 Charter breaches regarding his arrest and vehicle search, and an error in jury instruction concerning sunglasses found with the drugs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly determined reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search based on corroborated confidential informant information and police investigation.

The court also found no error in the jury instruction, as the sunglasses issue was not central and lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder after a retrial.

He appealed his conviction on three grounds: the application judge erred by dismissing the application to admit hearsay for a third-party suspect, the trial judge failed to give a sufficient corrective instruction regarding the Crown’s prejudicial closing argument, and the trial judge erred by charging the jury on party liability without factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's hearsay ruling, the trial judge's handling of the Crown's closing, or the party liability instruction, which was found to have an evidentiary basis and was akin to co-principal liability.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal on the party liability issue, arguing insufficient evidentiary foundation and inadequate jury instructions.

The Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a cellphone Health App to show the accused was pacing at home shortly after a fatal fire.

The defence opposed, arguing the underlying science was unreliable.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the Health App data was not reliable for forensic purposes in this case, as there was no independent evidence the accused was walking or running with the phone, and the app could register false positives.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased victim, Alan Rutherford, identifying his assailant in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as dying declarations and spontaneous utterances.

The defence challenged their reliability due to inconsistencies among witnesses and a minor factual error by the declarant.

The court found that the statements met the criteria for both traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach, concluding that the defence's objections went to the weight of the evidence rather than its threshold admissibility.

The Crown's application to admit the statements was granted.

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, charged with two counts of first-degree murder, to sit at counsel table during trial.

The court outlines twelve principles governing such applications, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and courtroom security.

The court rejects the notion that the defence bears an onus to show exceptional circumstances.

Applying these principles, the court grants the application, permitting the accused to sit at counsel table, subject to being restrained by silent ankle shackles and appropriate security placement.

The appellant, Pierre Aragon, appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possessing a weapon, and uttering a threat, and his indeterminate dangerous offender sentence.

The convictions stemmed from a 2012 beating of Fernando Fernandes, a Loners Motorcycle Club associate, by members of a rival group.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the recognition evidence and extrinsic discreditable conduct evidence properly admitted.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, concluding that the sentencing judge erred in identifying aggravating factors and failed to provide sufficient reasons for several rulings, including the decision to recall witnesses and the constitutional challenge.

The sentence was set aside, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered before a different judge.

The appellants, Darko Stojanovski and Daniel Stojanovski, appealed their convictions for attempted murder and their 18-year sentences.

The central issues included the adequacy of jury instructions on party liability (aiding), the introduction of alternative Crown theories, the use of prior consistent statements for identification, and the appropriateness of the sentences.

The majority dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the jury charge adequate and the sentences fit.

A dissenting judge would have allowed Darko's conviction appeal, arguing the jury instruction on the specific intent required for attempted murder by aiding was insufficient and misleading.

The offender pleaded guilty to attempted murder after shooting a stranger multiple times at point-blank range during a public celebration in downtown Toronto.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and difficult background as mitigating factors, balanced against the extreme violence and public danger of the offence.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, reduced by 18 months for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and declined to order delayed parole.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter as a party to a fatal stabbing of a 15-year-old victim during an altercation in a park.

The Crown sought 10 years' imprisonment, while the offender sought 5 years (time served).

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the offender's possession of a knife while on a weapons prohibition, against mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment, less 55.5 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 34.5 months to serve.

The accused was found lying in a backyard suffering from a gunshot wound following a gunfight in a residential neighbourhood.

A loaded prohibited firearm was found nearby.

The Crown's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The court found significant gaps in the evidence, including unreliable police testimony regarding the exact location of the firearm and the presence of multiple other individuals involved in the shootout.

The court concluded there were reasonable inferences other than guilt, such as the firearm being left by another participant, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The defendants were convicted of recklessly discharging a restricted firearm, and one defendant was additionally convicted of drug trafficking and other firearm offences.

The court determined that the five-year mandatory minimum penalty applied to the discharge offence.

After considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the principle of totality, the court sentenced Mr. Jama to five years (reduced to four years, three months, and three weeks after credit) and Mr. Farah to a total of six years and 10.5 months (reduced to two years less a day after credit, plus probation).

The accused, Tyrelle Lee and Steven MacIsaac, were charged with second-degree murder following a fatal stabbing at a park party.

A verbal altercation escalated into a physical melee, during which the deceased was chased to a hill and stabbed once in the chest by Lee.

MacIsaac was present, armed with a knife, and assisted in preventing the deceased from escaping.

The court found that while Lee caused the unlawful death, the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were found guilty of manslaughter, with MacIsaac convicted as a party to the offence for aiding and abetting.

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The accused was charged with two separate first-degree murders in Toronto and Brampton.

During a pre-trial motion, the court previously ruled that the accused's confessions to undercover officers were admissible.

In this motion, the court determined how to edit the confession for the Toronto trial to prevent the jury from hearing overly prejudicial evidence about the Brampton homicide.

The court ruled that explicit references to the Brampton shooting must be edited out, but circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the car and gun used in both incidents remained admissible due to its high probative value regarding identity.

The accused, M.J.I., sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the initial detention order was inappropriate, the proposed release plan was strengthened, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error in the initial detention and deemed the revised release plan insufficient on its own.

However, considering the accused's serious injuries, restricted mobility, asthma, and increased vulnerability to COVID-19 in custody, the court determined that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

M.J.I. was ordered released on house arrest with three sureties and electronic monitoring, subject to specific conditions.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a loaded handgun, ammunition, and illegal drugs) found during a vehicle search incident to arrest and a subsequent strip search at the police station, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding both the vehicle search (justified as incident to arrest and an inventory search) and the strip search (justified as incident to arrest and for custodial safety) were lawful.

The court also upheld the validity of the telewarrants used for a later search of the vehicle, finding the grounds for their issuance and the resort to the telewarrant process were reasonable.

The accused, facing multiple firearm and drug charges, brought an application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his trial, arguing the dock would negatively impact the presumption of innocence and impede interaction with counsel.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the customary position of the accused is in the dock and that juries are adequately instructed on the presumption of innocence to prevent any prejudice.