Joan M. Barrett

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter for his role as a party to a fatal stabbing during a planned group assault.

The Crown sought 7 to 9 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 4 years.

The court found the offender's moral culpability to be in the medium range, noting he was not the instigator or the stabber, but participated in a masked and hooded group attack.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to a lack of evidence of adverse impact.

The offender was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment of the respondent under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code to determine whether he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

The respondent had previously pled guilty to assault with a weapon and other offences after brandishing a knife at an ODSP office.

The court held that the Crown's failure to provide notice under s. 752.01 did not preclude the application.

Finding that the index offence constituted a serious personal injury offence and that the respondent's extensive criminal record provided reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, the court granted the application and ordered a 60-day assessment.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and sexual assault, as well as his six-month conditional sentence order.

The offences occurred at a housing shelter where both the appellant and the complainant resided.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, his Charter rights were violated due to lost video surveillance, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were sound, the lost video evidence was peripheral and not due to police negligence, and the trial was fair.

The sentence was also upheld as fit and proportionate.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference relating to his former partner's niece, who was between four and seven years old at the time.

The complainant's evidence included recovered memories and she had been exposed to psychedelic drugs as a child.

The accused testified and denied the allegations.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence and found the complainant credible.

Due to concerns about recovered memories and psychedelic exposure, the court sought confirmatory evidence, which it found in the brother's testimony about the accused's diaper fetish.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the complainant sit on his face and pee into a diaper, constituting both offences.

The defendant was tried for the second-degree murder of his parents and the attempted murder of his brother.

In a bifurcated trial, the court previously found the actus reus proven.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the defence abandoned a claim of not criminally responsible.

The court found the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The nature, number, and location of the stab wounds inflicted on the parents demonstrated an intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause death, while the planned ambush of the brother demonstrated a specific intent to kill.

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 Crown applied to designate the offender as a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who had a lengthy history of domestic violence and non-compliance with court orders, argued for a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found that the statutory criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no reasonable expectation that the offender's high risk of violent recidivism could be managed in the community, and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of detention.

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.

The 30-year-old first offender was convicted of being a party to a sexual assault after digitally penetrating the complainant while she was physically restrained by another passenger in his vehicle.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence argued for 18 months to two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim, finding that digital penetration is as serious as penile penetration.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

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.

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.