J. Kim

The accused, Luke Adam Martin, was convicted of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving large quantities of fentanyl and methamphetamine, alongside guilty pleas to theft, possession of break-in instruments, and breach of probation.

The court considered the serious nature of the offences, the large quantities of drugs involved, the presence of firearms, and the accused’s prior criminal record and probation status.

The accused’s submissions to treat the drug possession as a fleeting courier incident and to exclude firearms as an aggravating factor were rejected.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years for fentanyl trafficking and 6 years concurrent for methamphetamine trafficking, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and concurrent sentences for the other offences.

This decision concerns Kay Louise Belk, who stabbed her husband while he slept without any preceding conflict.

She was found to be in a dreamlike state, hearing voices compelling her to act.

The court accepted a joint submission that she was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a confirmed Major Neurocognitive Disorder of moderate severity, caused by multiple etiologies including Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and vascular disease.

The forensic psychiatric assessment concluded that Ms. Belk was unable to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of her act at the time.

The court accordingly rendered an NCR verdict and deferred disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

This decision concerns the sentencing of the defendant for manslaughter, to which he pleaded guilty.

The offence involved the fatal assault of his intimate partner, who was vulnerable due to drug and alcohol consumption.

The assault was brutal and prolonged, resulting in blunt force trauma and internal injuries.

Aggravating factors included the domestic context, victim vulnerability, the vicious nature of the assault, the defendant's failure to summon immediate medical aid, and prior abuse.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, sincere remorse, youthful first offender status, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, rehabilitative efforts, and strong family support.

The court balanced these factors, imposing a sentence of eight years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused, Liam McCudden, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his trial for impaired driving and stunt driving.

The court calculated the total delay from the date the informations were sworn (July 28, 2020) to the anticipated end of trial (March 23, 2022), totaling 19.9 months.

After deducting 35 days of defence delay attributed to a frivolous Charter application, the net delay was 18.7 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The Crown failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the delay between the Crown pre-trial and the judicial pre-trial was an exceptional circumstance caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time and entered a stay of proceedings.

X.C., charged with sexual assault, sought directions on whether he needed to bring a s. 278.93 application under the Criminal Code to adduce WeChat text messages with the complainant, D.Z., at trial, and on the timing of any such application.

The court analyzed the Bill C-51 amendments to ss. 276, 278.1, and 278.92, distinguishing between messages with and without sexual content, and assessing the complainant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court ruled that some non-sexual messages and messages discussing past sexual activity directly related to the charge did not require pre-screening.

For other sexual messages, pre-screening was required, but the application could be brought mid-trial after the complainant's testimony, to protect the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and related offences.

The court imposed a sentence of one year imprisonment on the firearm offence and a consecutive three months on the robbery offence, with a suspended sentence on the breach.

A three-year probation order was imposed with extensive conditions including curfew, non-association orders, weapons prohibition, community service, and mandatory counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence and general deterrence against the accused's vulnerabilities, youth, and supportive family circumstances.

The defendant applied to exclude evidence seized during a search warrant execution and incidental to arrest, alleging false and misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The Crown conceded some misrepresentations in the ITO regarding the defendant's past criminal history.

The court declined to hear the late-breaking application regarding the search incidental to arrest due to lack of proper notice but indicated it would be open to hearing it later with proper notice.

For the search warrant, the court excised the misleading statements from the ITO and, after allowing amplification of poor-quality images, found that sufficient grounds remained for the warrant's issuance.

The court also concluded that even if there was a Charter breach, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of the conduct, the impact on the accused, and society's interest in a merits-based adjudication of serious charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Crown conceded the impaired operation charge.

The defendant challenged the refusal charge on Charter grounds, arguing a violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) and seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to contact counsel of his choice and deliberately delayed the investigative process.

The defendant was convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample.

Wesley Guzylak pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the stabbing death of his romantic partner, Cotie Weekley, after she ended their relationship.

The murder occurred after Guzylak broke into Weekley's home and waited for her, then stabbed her multiple times in front of her seven-year-old daughter.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years and 9 months, which the court accepted.

The court considered aggravating factors including planning, breach of trust, the horrific nature of the attack, the offender's violent history, and the profound trauma inflicted on the victim's daughter.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, which spared the child from testifying, and the offender's difficult childhood and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the domestic homicide of his wife.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence and had to determine the period of parole ineligibility under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Accepting a joint submission from the Crown and defence, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, noting the brutal nature of the attack, the profound impact on the victim's family, and the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and early guilty plea.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

On January 31, 2015, between 5 and 6 a.m., the accused drove his vehicle while impaired with a blood alcohol concentration between 189 and 214 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (nearly triple the legal limit), causing a head-on collision with another vehicle.

The accused's passenger suffered a fractured right hand with ongoing complications.

The other driver suffered catastrophic injuries including shattered ankles, broken femur, pelvis, arm and neck, torn intestines, lacerated spleen, 26 fractures requiring metal plates and rods, and extensive scarring.

The court imposed a sentence of three-and-one-half years incarceration on the first count and 18 months concurrent on the second count, along with a three-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and weapons prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against his ex-wife.

The offence occurred when the accused attacked his ex-wife with a 25-inch serrated machete-type knife after she began packing her belongings to leave the family home.

The victim suffered multiple lacerations and abrasions requiring stitches, primarily to her hands, arms, head, and neck.

The court imposed a sentence of 610 days (approximately 20 months), less 254 days credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in approximately one year of incarceration, plus three years probation with conditions including anger management and domestic violence counselling, a weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant refused to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device on his driveway after being investigated by police for a possible impaired driving offense.

The defendant claimed he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal based on pre-existing anxiety and fear of police officers.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to make the breath demand, that the defendant's refusal was clear and unequivocal, and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a reasonable excuse.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter arguments regarding unlawful search and seizure and the right to counsel.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Crown brought an application to estreat bail after the accused failed to appear for his preliminary hearing.

The accused had been released on a $100,000 recognizance, with two sureties pledging $50,000 each.

The court found that the sureties had exercised exceptional due diligence, imposing strict house rules and immediately reporting the accused to the police when he failed to report.

Applying the factors from Horvath, the court dismissed the forfeiture application against the sureties but ordered the $100,000 estreated against the absconded accused.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an incident at a shopping plaza parking lot in Richmond Hill during a child custody exchange.

The complainant alleged the defendant struck her with a ski during a heated dispute over access to their daughter.

The defendant denied any physical contact.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the mechanics of the alleged assault to be unclear and internally inconsistent.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his girlfriend who witnessed the incident, was that he did not strike the complainant and had no physical contact with her.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) test, the court found the defendant not guilty, as the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

A voir dire was held to determine the competency of a conditionally accredited Korean interpreter, Jun Young Choi, pursuant to section 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The interpreter had failed the simultaneous translation component of the Ministry test but passed the consecutive translation component.

The court applied the objective standard of competence established in case law and found the interpreter competent to proceed with consecutive interpretation in a non-complex, non-technical trial.