Jeremy Naresh

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, kidnapping, and forcible confinement following an ambush in a parking garage.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and rental vehicle records, to prove the accused drove the pickup truck used by the assailants.

The court rejected the accused's alibi and found that the only reasonable inference was that he drove the truck.

The court convicted the accused as a party to the aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, and kidnapping under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, but acquitted him of forcible confinement.

Two accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery respectively, following an altercation over a bicycle that resulted in the victim's death.

The court considered sentencing ranges, pre-sentence custody credits, and Gladue principles for both Indigenous offenders.

Sentences were imposed, with the court emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, particularly for the manslaughter conviction involving a vulnerable victim.

Ryan James Ruznisky pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, his fourth such conviction.

The court considered aggravating factors including a high blood alcohol content (207-242 mg/100mL), high speed, and collision with a residence, and mitigating factors such as his genuine remorse, significant efforts at rehabilitation for long-standing substance abuse, and a history of childhood sexual abuse.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 120 days.

The court imposed a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, a three-year driving prohibition, and 18 months probation with a counselling requirement, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the offender's rehabilitative progress.

The accused, a 25-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused struck and killed a 94-year-old pedestrian while speeding in a busy tourist area, then fled the scene in panic.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the driving conduct and flight against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, positive background, genuine remorse, and guilty pleas.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while applying the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders, the court imposed a total sentence of 21 months in custody and a five-year driving prohibition.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee penalty decision that suspended a veterinarian's licence for eight months for professional misconduct involving workplace abuse and altering records, arguing the penalty lacked necessary enforcement provisions.

The veterinarian cross-appealed the liability findings, alleging flawed credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings and concluding the penalty imposed was not clearly unfit or unreasonable.

The accused was found unconscious in a running vehicle on a snowbank, exhibiting signs of severe intoxication.

Charged with impaired operation and operating over 80 mg%, the defence argued a Charter s. 10(b) breach, claiming the accused's waiver of the right to counsel was not informed or unequivocal due to his condition, and challenged the impairment evidence.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability.

It held that the police fulfilled their duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel, and his repeated declinations were unambiguous, not triggering a further duty to inquire despite his intoxication.

The court concluded that the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the accused's physical and mental faculties were completely impaired by alcohol.

The Charter application was dismissed, and findings of guilt were entered for both counts, with the over 80 mg% count stayed under the rule against multiple convictions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of two vehicles owned by the accused following his convictions for drug trafficking offences.

The court granted the forfeiture of a 2005 Chevrolet Malibu under s. 16(1) of the CDSA, finding on a balance of probabilities that it was used as a venue for a drug transaction and to store drugs.

However, the court dismissed the application regarding a 2017 GMC Sierra pickup truck.

Because the truck was not related to the offences for which the accused was convicted, s. 16(2) required the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was offence-related property.

The circumstantial evidence of short meetings with known drug users fell short of this standard.

The accused was charged with four counts relating to domestic violence against his common law wife and his son.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion to sever the count relating to the son from the counts relating to the wife.

The Crown brought a cross-motion seeking a pre-trial ruling that evidence of the four separate incidents would be admissible across all four counts to show the family dynamic, motive, and the climate of fear.

The court provisionally allowed the Crown's motion, finding a reasonable possibility that the cross-count evidence would be admissible at trial.

Applying the factors for severance, the court dismissed the defence motion, concluding that the factual and legal issues were closely intertwined and the interests of justice favoured a single trial where the vulnerable witnesses would only have to testify once.

Craig Harris-Lowe applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court analyzed the total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion, deducting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic).

The court found significant defence-caused delays, including repeated failures to schedule resolution meetings and attend court.

Despite the total delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling, the net delay, after deductions, fell below it.

The application for a stay was denied as the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful, sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The defendant, Isaac Kalejaiye, was found guilty after trial of dangerous operation of a conveyance.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional nature of his dangerous driving (road rage) which caused significant, lasting injuries to multiple victims, and his extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included his mental health issues and proactive steps towards rehabilitation.

The court rejected both the defence's request for an absolute discharge and the Crown's proposed conditional sentence as too lenient, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A period of incarceration and a significant driving prohibition were deemed necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability.