Joe Hanna

Dean Archibald was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault, theft under $5000, and mischief under $5000.

The aggravated assault caused severe facial fractures and unconsciousness to one victim, a building superintendent, and the other victim was assaulted while attempting to call for help, with her phone destroyed.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the Defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the unprovoked and vicious nature of the attack, significant victim impact, and interference with aid, alongside mitigating factors such as harsh pre-sentence custody and the offender's delusional disorder.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' incarceration, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the gravity of the offences.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years in custody.

The court found exceptional circumstances, noting the offender's lower moral blameworthiness as she was likely covering for the principal offender, her history of abuse and drug addiction, and her significant strides toward rehabilitation.

Following the repeal of s. 742.1(e) of the Criminal Code, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it would not endanger the community and would satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and discharging a firearm with intent.

The charges stemmed from a fatal shooting in a public parking lot.

The Crown sought a 15-year sentence, while the defence proposed 10 years before credit for pre-trial custody.

The court considered various aggravating factors, including the deliberate use of an illegal firearm, multiple shots, harm to multiple victims, flight from the scene, and the significant impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's relative youth, a single prior youth conviction, a history of domestic violence trauma, family support, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court also considered the provocation that reduced the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter, noting its limited impact on moral culpability.

The judge determined an appropriate sentencing range for firearm-related manslaughter to be 12 to 15 years.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a total sentence of 11.5 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a 6-year sentence for the firearm charge.

After accounting for 5 years of pre-trial custody credit, the defendant was sentenced to a further 6.5 years imprisonment, along with a lifetime s. 109 order and a DNA order.

The Crown applied under s. 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to S.S.'s youth records to assist in his adult sentencing for manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm.

S.S. had previously been found guilty of assault causing bodily harm as a young person.

The court granted the application, finding that the Crown had a valid and substantial interest in the records, disclosure was not prohibited, and access was necessary for the proper administration of justice, balancing S.S.'s privacy interests against the public interest in a fit sentence for a serious adult re-offence.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder, the Crown sought to admit three hearsay statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule after the witnesses failed to adopt them in court.

The court excluded a police statement due to a lack of necessity and suggestive questioning.

However, the court admitted a witness's preliminary inquiry testimony, finding the witness's claimed lack of memory amounted to a recantation, satisfying necessity and procedural reliability.

The court also admitted a surreptitiously recorded video of another witness describing the shooting, finding necessity met by the witness's feigned memory loss and threshold reliability established through procedural safeguards and corroborative evidence (gunshot residue in a Gucci bag).

A second video was excluded due to its prejudicial effect regarding the accused's bad character.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that an NCR accused with schizophrenia and substance use disorders constituted a significant threat to public safety and ordering continued detention.

The appellant challenged the Board's application of the legal test for "significant threat" under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found the Board failed to properly apply the Winko standard by relying on speculative harm ("could" result) rather than assessing the real likelihood and seriousness of harm together.

The court allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the Board for a new hearing with proper legal analysis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for multiple frauds arising from a credit card scam.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility assessment, arguing she erred in finding his testimony unbelievable and preferring the testimony of witness Miller.

The appellant also argued the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility with appropriate deference to witness evidence, and that the Crown's case had considerable strength with evidence of the appellant's involvement in key steps of the fraudulent activity.

Appeal from conviction on two counts of rape and two counts of incest against the appellant's two sisters.

The appellant was convicted at trial and sentenced as a youth to two years in custody.

The appeal raised four grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in limiting a section 276 application regarding cross-examination on allegations against other alleged assailants; (2) the trial judge misapprehended evidence on memory transference; (3) the trial judge improperly relied on similar fact evidence; and (4) the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of sexual and violent offences against a complainant aged 12-14 years over a two-year relationship while the appellant was aged 27-29.

The trial judge imposed an 8-year sentence.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's evidence despite inconsistencies and admitted lies, the authentication of photographic evidence, reliance on the parents' evidence, and rejection of the defence theory regarding motive to fabricate.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part only with respect to pre-trial custody credit, with the Court finding the sentence otherwise fit given the appellant's position of trust, the complainant's vulnerability, the age disparity, duration of abuse, and instances of violence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against a nine-year-old child.

The trial judge found that the appellant, who had prior convictions for similar offences involving foot fetishism, breached his probation conditions and sexually assaulted the child by forcing her to rub her feet on his penis.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: inadequate scrutiny of the complainant's evidence, misuse of similar fact evidence, and misapprehension of defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the child's credibility despite inconsistencies in her testimony, appropriately used similar fact evidence to corroborate the complainant's account, and correctly weighed the defence evidence.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering a conditional discharge with residence requirements and mandatory reporting to CAMH.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board failed to properly consider whether he continued to present a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly applied the statutory criteria under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, considered the appellant's psychiatric condition (schizophrenia with profound negative symptoms), his history of offending, and expert evidence that without continued control the appellant would likely fall away from treatment and pose a significant risk of violent re-offending.

The conditional discharge was found to be a reasonable disposition within the Board's discretion.

An appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a hybrid order requiring detention in the Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attacks on strangers in 2007.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety but was considering a treatment plan involving transfer to a more supportive general unit with behavioural programs.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's disposition unreasonable given the identified treatment impasse, the appellant's advancing age and declining health, and the lack of meaningful progress.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for an independent assessment and rehearing.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for threats to cause death and bodily harm to his biological mother, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition requiring him to remain detained in the secure forensic unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with only supervised access to the hospital grounds.

The appellant accepted the detention requirement but objected to the supervised access restriction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the appellant's high risk to reoffend, anti-social behaviour, serious criminal record, high psychopathy score, and potentially unassessed sadistic paraphilia.

The accused pleaded guilty to operation impaired and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without authorization or licence.

On March 8, 2016, police responded to reports of an impaired driver on Highway 401 in Toronto.

The accused was observed striking barriers and weaving between lanes.

Upon arrest, officers discovered a loaded handgun with the safety in the "off" position in the accused's jacket pocket.

Testing revealed the presence of morphine, codeine, and alprazolam in the accused's system.

The court imposed a $1,500 fine and 18-month driving prohibition for the impaired operation charge.

For the firearm offence, the court sentenced the accused to 3 years imprisonment, reduced to 19 months after accounting for pre-trial custody and mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and harsh detention conditions.

The accused was also placed on probation for 2 years.

The court acquitted Ms. Boudreau of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime charges due to insufficient evidence proving her knowledge, consent, or control over the seized items.

Despite some personal documents and clothing belonging to Ms. Boudreau being found at the residence, the Crown failed to establish her presence at the residence on the date of the search or her continuous residency during the period the drugs and money were present.

Surveillance evidence did not identify her, and there was no fingerprint evidence.

The court found only impermissible speculative inferences to connect her to the seized items, thus failing to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter right.

The total delay was approximately 54.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling under R. v. Jordan.

The court found certain periods of defence delay and identified three discrete exceptional circumstances related to the preliminary inquiry: a last-minute election for a preliminary inquiry, the illness of the assigned justice, and underestimation of the preliminary inquiry's length.

The court also determined the case was particularly complex due to voluminous disclosure, numerous witnesses, and multiple co-accused, and that the Crown had a concrete plan to manage this complexity.

Additionally, the transitional exceptional circumstance was applied, finding that the institutional delay was acceptable under the previous Morin framework and that the Crown reasonably relied on the prior state of the law.

No actual prejudice to the accused was found.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, Michael Majeed, challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing that evidence obtained from his home should be excluded due to an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a *Garofoli* review, assessing whether the affiant subverted the pre-authorization process through deliberate non-disclosure, bad faith, or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found that while the affiant's disclosures were not full or fair and showed a lack of care, they did not meet the high threshold of deliberate deception or subversion required to invalidate the warrant.

The s. 8 application was dismissed.

The applicant, Michael Majeed, facing fraud charges, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of a search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO).

The defence challenged the search warrant's validity under s. 8 of the Charter, alleging the affiant misled the issuing justice.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court applied the Garofoli test for leave to cross-examine and considered the residual discretion to set aside a warrant for subversion of the pre-authorization process.

The court found a realistic likelihood that cross-examination in three specific areas (source of physical description, source of fraudulent funds, and frequency of sightings) would assist in determining whether the affiant deliberately misled or acted with significant carelessness.

Leave to cross-examine was granted.

The accused was convicted of two counts of assault, one count of threatening death, and one count of assault causing bodily harm arising from domestic violence incidents against his former wife.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence to be served intermittently, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or, alternatively, a conditional sentence of 3-4 months.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of four months to be served in the community, followed by 12 months of probation, finding that while a custodial sentence was appropriate given the domestic violence context, the accused's lack of criminal record, successful completion of anger management programming, and lengthy bail period with curfew conditions without breach supported a conditional sentence that could satisfy principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and intimidation following an incident in which the complainant was lured to the defendant's home and severely beaten.

The Crown alleged that the male defendant, motivated by jealousy over the complainant's intimate relationship with the female defendant, orchestrated the assault with an unknown second assailant.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and accepted his evidence that he was set upon by two individuals and beaten, suffering fractured ribs and significant facial injuries.

The male defendant was found guilty of all charges.

The female defendant's charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge and intent to participate in the assault, though the judge found her at least wilfully blind to the possibility of violence.