Jody Milstein

The young person was found guilty of multiple offences, including possession of a fentanyl mixture for the purpose of trafficking and assaulting a peace officer.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, arguing the offences were exceptional under s. 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found the gateway to custody was open due to the gravity of the offences, including weaponizing the drugs against police.

However, considering the young person's significant trauma, mental health diagnoses, and a Charter breach regarding the right to counsel during arrest, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of 24 months' probation and a fine.

A young person was charged with robbery contrary to section 343(b) of the Criminal Code following a violent group attack on a complainant at a basketball court in Toronto on August 12, 2015.

The central issue was identity.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification evidence, recognition evidence from a security supervisor, and photographic evidence.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The court found that while the eyewitnesses were credible and honest, the identification evidence was unreliable due to the chaotic circumstances of the attack, the poor quality of the photographs, discrepancies in witness descriptions, and the limited nature of the security supervisor's prior acquaintance with the defendant.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual in the red t-shirt involved in the robbery.

A young person was charged with eight firearm-related offences arising from a single incident on February 17, 2013, in Toronto.

Police officers from the Toronto Anti-violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) unit conducted a street stop and search that resulted in the discovery of a loaded handgun.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the detention and search, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary and illegal, initiated without reasonable grounds and prolonged based on discriminatory factors including the value of the vehicle and the race of the occupants.

The search was conducted without proper grounds and without informing the accused of his detention or right to counsel.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The young person was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The police officer delayed making a roadside breath demand for at least 12 minutes after forming a reasonable suspicion, violating the immediacy requirement of s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code and the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach given the enhanced procedural protections and special guarantees afforded to young persons under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A young person was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision in Toronto.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the roadside breath demand, arguing that the demand was made in violation of section 8 of the Charter due to a failure to comply with the "forthwith" (immediacy) requirement.

The court found that the demand was unconstitutional and excluded all evidence obtained as a result, applying the section 24(2) framework from R. v. Grant.

The decision emphasizes the heightened protections afforded to young persons under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the obligation of law enforcement to jealously guard their rights.

A young person was convicted after trial of one count of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference against a victim who was six years old when the abuse began and eleven when it ceased.

The abuse occurred over five years between 1997 and 2002, perpetrated by the accused who was thirteen at the outset and eighteen at the conclusion.

The victim did not report the abuse to police until December 2011.

The court imposed a custody and supervision order of nine months followed by eighteen months of probation, with conditions including no contact with the victim, attendance for sexual offending assessment, and counselling as recommended.

A youth was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a younger relative occurring between 1997 and 2002.

The complainant, who was between six and eleven years old at the time of the alleged offences, testified that the accused engaged in repeated sexual abuse including kissing, touching, cunnilingus, analingus, and attempted penetration.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters, accepted the mother's evidence of an incriminating phone call in which the accused admitted guilt, and convicted the accused on all three charges.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing child witness credibility in context of their age and circumstances, and the reliability of adult recollections of childhood trauma.

A young person was charged with seven offences related to the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and ammunition seized from a hotel room during a police response to a noise complaint.

The central issue was credibility: whether the accused was in possession of the firearm when police entered the room.

The Crown alleged the accused had the gun in his hand and was attempting to conceal it.

The accused testified he never possessed the gun and only heard it being racked.

The court found the accused guilty of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, possession of a prohibited firearm knowing it was not registered, and careless storage of firearm and ammunition.

The court acquitted the accused on the charge of possession of a prohibited device for a dangerous purpose due to insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea.

This is a ruling on an application by the accused in a sexual assault trial for production of the complainant's school records pursuant to section 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her without consent while she was in a paralytic state induced by alcohol consumption.

The trial had commenced and the Crown had concluded examination in chief.

The accused sought production of the complainant's Ontario Student Record, attendance records, and school social worker records.

The court applied the two-stage test under sections 278.3-278.5 of the Criminal Code, considering likely relevance and whether production was necessary in the interests of justice, while balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy and equality rights.