John Cisorio

Sentencing following convictions for two counts of manslaughter and multiple related firearm and bodily harm offences arising from a mass shooting in a crowded downtown food court that killed two men and injured numerous bystanders.

The court treated the offences as highly aggravated public gun violence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, while rejecting self-defence and finding only limited mitigation from the offender's race-and-culture evidence and mental disorder evidence.

The court accepted that prolonged administrative segregation and harsh pre-sentence detention conditions breached ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter and used that finding to decline what would otherwise have been a delayed parole ineligibility order.

Life sentences were imposed on the two manslaughter counts, with concurrent fixed terms on the remaining counts and pre-sentence credit applied to the determinate sentences.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking to admit circumstantial evidence to challenge the accused's narrative of how he came into possession of the handgun used in the Eaton Centre shooting.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence linking a third party to a prior shooting where the same gun was used, and letters suggesting the accused knew the third party.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the suggested links were too speculative and that admitting the evidence to challenge the accused's credibility on a critical issue would be unfair and unreasonable.

Christopher Husbands was on trial for murder and aggravated assault following a shooting incident.

The defence sought verdicts of Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) due to a dissociative state.

During jury deliberations, a question arose regarding whether the accused should be found NCR if he was able to appreciate the nature and quality of some, but not all, of the shots fired.

The judge instructed the jury to consider the defence's onus to prove NCRMD for the shots that caused the deaths and injuries, emphasizing the lack of evidentiary basis to parse the shots.

The jury ultimately found Husbands guilty of two counts of manslaughter, five counts of aggravated assault, and other firearm-related counts.

The accused, charged with murder and other offences arising from a shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre, brought a Corbett application to exclude reference to a prior sexual assault conviction and the fact he was on bail at the time of the shooting.

The Crown argued the full record was relevant to the accused's diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder and his credibility.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused's extensive admitted criminal history provided sufficient information for the jury to assess credibility and malingering, and that the sexual assault conviction and bail status would be unnecessarily prejudicial.

Christopher Husbands, facing a retrial for murder and aggravated assault stemming from the Toronto Eaton Centre shooting, applied to exclude viva voce evidence or prior testimony of a 13-year-old victim and his family.

The defence argued that given the accused's admissions and the live issues at trial (specifically, a Not Criminally Responsible defence based on PTSD), the prejudicial impact of such emotional testimony would outweigh its probative value.

The Crown opposed, suggesting the evidence would balance sympathy for the accused.

The court allowed the defence's application, ruling that the evidence of the victim and his family would be presented via agreed statements of fact, read to the jury and filed as exhibits, rather than through live testimony or prior audio, as the latter would be highly prejudicial without significant probative value on the contentious issues.

The Crown applied to admit an audio-taped hearsay statement from Nisan Nirmalendran, a deceased witness, regarding the 2012 Eaton Centre shooting where the accused, Christopher Husbands, admitted firing shots.

Husbands' defence was not criminally responsible due to PTSD and dissociation.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the statement lacked necessity due to other available evidence and failed to meet the threshold reliability criteria.

Key reasons for denying admissibility included the absence of an oath or affirmation, lack of cross-examination, potential tainting from news reports, and significant motives for the declarant to fabricate or downplay his actions.

Christopher Husbands, facing a retrial for murder and aggravated assault, asserted a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) defence based on mental disorder automatism due to PTSD.

The defence applied to exclude expert references to Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and to limit references to malingering.

The court dismissed both applications, ruling that ASPD could be referenced, with limitations on propensity aspects, focusing on its manipulation, malingering, and deception components relevant to the NCR defence.

The court also allowed Crown experts to refer to malingering concerns, emphasizing its relevance to the NCR issue and providing jury instructions to distinguish it from the presumption of innocence regarding the elements of the offence.

Christopher Husbands, facing charges including second-degree murder, applied to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on potential bias related to mental illness, specifically concerning a "not criminally responsible" defence.

The defence proposed a third challenge question regarding preconceptions about mental illness, in addition to agreed-upon challenges for race and publicity.

The court considered expert testimony on public stigma against mental illness but found that the evidence did not establish a widespread bias specific to the mental disorder at issue (PTSD) or that jurors would be unable to set aside such bias despite judicial instructions.

The application for the additional challenge for cause question was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry into a mass shooting at the Toronto Eaton Centre, the Crown sought committal on two counts of first-degree murder.

The accused was charged with nine counts total, including two counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder.

The court found that the attempted murder charges should be reduced to aggravated assault, as there was no evidence of specific intent to kill the five survivors.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support committal on first-degree murder rather than second-degree murder for the two victims who died.

The court found that motive (revenge for a prior stabbing) combined with the deliberate and calculated nature of the shooting provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer planning and deliberation.

The offender was found guilty of second-degree murder for stabbing his mother to death.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the profound breach of trust in a domestic relationship, the brutal nature of the attack involving multiple weapons, and the offender's criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

Four accused were jointly charged with offences relating to a loaded firearm discovered in a vehicle in which they were occupants.

Two accused faced additional counts of transporting, possessing, and controlling the firearm and related ammunition offences.

After the Crown closed its case, all accused sought directed verdicts of acquittal on the basis that the Crown had failed to establish a prima facie case of knowledge or control of the firearm.

The court held that mere presence in a vehicle containing a firearm, coupled with nervous behaviour and seat movements, was insufficient to establish knowledge or control beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where another unidentified occupant fled the vehicle from the seat where the firearm was located.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence could not permit a properly instructed jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court granted directed verdicts and acquitted all accused.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused to police during a lengthy interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework to assess voluntariness.

While the initial portions of the interview were voluntary, the court found that the police crossed the line by suggesting the accused needed to 'spin' his story for the courts and that his lawyer would not investigate his side.

This constituted an improper inducement that overbore the accused's will.

The statements made after this point were ruled involuntary and inadmissible.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of possession of firearms without a license and careless storage of firearms and ammunition.

Police executed a search warrant at a residence and found two firearms and ammunition hidden in various locations within the basement and main living area.

The accused was found in the basement in his underwear near a couch.

The Crown sought to establish constructive possession through circumstantial evidence, including the accused's proximity to the basement, personal documents bearing his name found in a safe, and scales and a cell phone near where he was found.

The court discharged the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown had failed to establish sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the accused had knowledge of or control over the firearms.