Joan M. Barrett

The court sentenced Michael Alexander Llanos for multiple drug trafficking offences and possession of a prohibited weapon, following a judge-alone trial.

The decision reviews the facts, the offender’s background, the objectivity of the pre-sentence report, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The court found Mr. Llanos to be a mid-level fentanyl trafficker and imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the gravity of fentanyl trafficking, the offender’s addiction and medical issues, and the harshness of his pre-sentence incarceration.

The court sentenced Idriss Buni for aggravated assault against his intimate partner, Muna Riyaleh, following a knife attack.

The court found the appropriate sentence to be 7.5 years’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The decision discusses the applicable sentencing range for aggravated assault in the context of intimate partner violence, the impact of recent legislative amendments, and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The court sentenced Neng Jia Jin for the first degree murder of Vanessa Kurpiewska and the attempted murder of Sulakshana Srijeyarah, both committed on December 8, 2022, on Toronto public transit.

Jin pleaded guilty, avoiding a lengthy trial.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years was imposed for murder, and 20 years’ imprisonment (concurrent) for attempted murder.

The court reviewed the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles, emphasizing the gravity of the offences, the profound impact on victims and the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

This mid-trial ruling addresses a Corbett application regarding the admissibility of a prior youth manslaughter conviction for the accused, Jahwayne Smart, in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applies the four Corbett factors and concludes that the prejudicial effect of admitting the manslaughter conviction outweighs its probative value, given the risk of propensity reasoning by the jury.

The ruling allows the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his adult record but excludes the youth manslaughter conviction.

The court found Michael Alexander Llanos guilty of possession of drugs and a prohibited weapon (black brass knuckles) for the purpose of trafficking, following a search of his apartment.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence, including the location and packaging of drugs, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and the nature of Llanos' relationship with his deceased girlfriend, Kyla Joyner.

The court rejected alternative theories that Joyner possessed the drugs for herself or for others without Llanos' knowledge, finding that the only reasonable inference was that Llanos had knowledge and control over the contraband.

Hearsay statements by Joyner were ruled inadmissible.

The accused, Idriss Buni, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against Muna Riyaleh.

The central issue was whether Ms. Riyaleh was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack by Mr. Buni or whether she attacked him and was injured during a struggle.

The court found Ms. Riyaleh to be a credible witness and rejected Mr. Buni’s account as contrived and inconsistent with the evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Buni’s guilt and found him guilty as charged.

This decision addresses the admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution.

The court considered whether text messages and viva voce testimony about the accused’s relationship with the deceased co-accused, Kyla Joyner, were admissible to prove joint or constructive possession of drugs and weapons.

The court allowed the admission of certain text communications and limited testimony, finding their probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The ruling clarifies the application of the four-step framework for admitting discreditable conduct evidence and the importance of context in assessing control and knowledge in joint possession cases.

The decision concerns the actus reus of two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted murder.

Alpha Henry was found guilty of unlawfully causing the deaths of his parents, Veronica and Colin Henry, and attempting to murder his brother, Daniel Henry.

The court found the evidence against the accused overwhelming, including forensic, video, and circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defence theory that Daniel was the true perpetrator.

The decision concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal in a criminal case involving convictions for offences arising from an unlawful entry into a dwelling.

The appellant, Gediminas Kevalas, sought to admit medical and related records to support his intoxication defence, arguing that he lacked the requisite mens rea for the offences.

The court found that the fresh evidence was compelling, relevant, and credible, and that its admission was in the interests of justice.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

Hanad Abdirizak Ahmed pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking fentanyl.

The court considered an Enhanced Presentence Report (EPSR) detailing the impact of anti-Black racism on the offender.

Aggravating factors included the gravity of fentanyl trafficking, the quantity involved (10.77 grams), and the repeated, profit-motivated "dial-a-dope" nature of the conduct.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, struggles with addiction, strong family and community support, positive rehabilitative steps, and experience with anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought a three-year concurrent sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the deadly nature of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a videotaped statement made by the defendant, Alpha Henry, to Detective McGinn, following the discovery of two deceased individuals at the defendant's residence.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness, arguing it was not the product of an operating mind and was obtained under oppressive circumstances, citing sleep deprivation, physical injuries, mental health concerns, and a lack of understanding of legal jeopardy.

The Crown contended the statement was voluntary and the defendant was alert, coherent, and eager to provide his account.

Applying the Oickle factors, the court found no evidence of threats, promises, inducements, or police trickery.

The court determined that despite some police omissions regarding medical inquiries, the circumstances were not oppressive, and the defendant possessed an operating mind, understanding his rights and the potential use of his statement.

Consequently, the defendant's videotaped statement was ruled admissible.

Abdirashid Adam was found guilty of manslaughter after a jury trial for the shooting death of Jovanh McKnollys.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the planned confrontation, the use of a concealed, loaded firearm with an obliterated serial number, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the offender's educational and employment history, good rehabilitative prospects, genuine remorse, harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his life experiences, particularly his decision to carry a firearm for safety.

The court emphasized that while social context evidence could mitigate the offender's responsibility, it did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence.

Deterrence and denunciation were deemed paramount.

The Crown sought 11 years, and the defence sought 5 years.

The accused, Libsom Hibab, was charged with sexual assault as a party to the offence under s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that Hibab digitally penetrated her vagina while another individual, Tinsay, restrained her.

Hibab admitted to some sexual touching but claimed it was consensual and stopped when asked, and that Tinsay's actions were separate and unknown to him.

The court rejected Hibab's testimony, finding it contrived and unbelievable, particularly his explanation for the complainant's injuries.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, supported by physical injuries and her distressed demeanour during the 911 call.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting Hibab as charged.

Joseph Marcel Kovacs was found guilty by a jury of three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of forcible confinement, all involving intimate partner violence against his former partner over four years.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less five days imprisonment, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation due to the gravity of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and the need to protect the public.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given the circumstances.

Joseph Kovacs, convicted of five counts of violence, brought a post-conviction application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay minimally exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown successfully argued that a 35-day jury blackout period due to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance, which, when deducted, brought the delay below the ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate that the remaining delay was unreasonable, as they did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or put the court on timely notice of s. 11(b) concerns.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

J.N.Z. was found guilty by a jury of invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference against a child (RM) aged 8-12.

The offences involved multiple incidents of sexual touching and one act of oral sex, occurring over several years, with the offender in a position of trust.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences.

Despite mitigating factors (age, support, no prior record at the time of offences), aggravating factors included the victim's young age, significant victim impact (suicidal ideation), multiple incidents, breach of trust, and a pattern of opportunistic behaviour (overlapping with a previous conviction involving another child).

The court rejected a reformatory sentence, deeming a penitentiary term necessary.

The applicant, Eze Moses Ojukwu, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence (heroin found in a knapsack) under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defence argued the search was unlawful as it was not truly incidental to the arrest and reflected a systemic failure by the Toronto Police Service.

The Crown contended the search was lawful for safety and evidence discovery purposes, or alternatively, that the evidence should be admitted under s. 24(2).

The court found the search was a lawful search incident to arrest based on safety concerns, given the high-risk domestic violence context and the accused's breach of release terms.

Even if there was a s. 8 breach, the court found the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) due to the minor nature of the breach, the moderate impact on the accused's privacy, and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit prior convictions of the accused, Jorge Nieto-Zelaya, as similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial involving a young complainant (RM).

The prior convictions related to sexual touching involving another young complainant (MG) while the accused was providing hair care services.

The defence argued that the similarities were generic and that the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

Applying the framework from R. v. Handy, the court found the evidence highly probative, demonstrating a specific and distinctive pattern of predatory conduct by the accused towards young boys in the context of hair care services, which defied coincidence.

The court concluded that any moral or reasoning prejudice could be managed through proper jury instructions.

The application to admit the similar fact evidence was granted.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of breach of probation involving a 16-year-old complainant, SB, whom he believed to be his biological daughter.

The accused admitted to sexual touching on March 1, 2021, but denied vaginal penetration and claimed consent.

He denied any sexual activity on March 3, 2021.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding him not credible.

The court found that the sexual activity on March 1, 2021, included non-consensual vaginal intercourse, supported by SB's testimony and medical evidence of vaginal tearing.

The court also found that sexual touching occurred on March 3, 2021, despite the accused's denial, supported by SB's testimony and photographs.

The court emphasized that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and that any ostensible consent was vitiated by his abuse of a position of trust and authority over a vulnerable young person.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.