John Kaldas

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking 1.4 kilograms of methamphetamine and 22.36 grams of fentanyl to an undercover police officer over several transactions.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's extremely difficult background as a refugee, her history of trauma, and her struggles with addiction and mental health.

However, given the large quantity of dangerous drugs involved and her extensive criminal record for breaching court orders, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for his role in a fatal attack on the victim.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the period of parole ineligibility should be set at the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the accused's Indigenous background, Gladue factors, his guilty plea, and his lesser role compared to his co-accused brother.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the court accepted the joint submission and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

The appellant, who speaks Taishanese and has no English language capability, was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that his right to an interpreter under section 14 of the Charter was breached because the interpreter provided for the first half of his trial interpreted in Cantonese rather than Taishanese.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence confirming the linguistic differences between the two languages and the interpreter's use of Cantonese.

The Court found that the interpretation fell below the constitutionally guaranteed standard, creating a real possibility that the appellant did not understand the proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, Royburn Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence, the accused's position of trust as the victim's former partner and father of her children, and the victim's pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a criminal record, his guilty plea, consistent financial support for his children, the victim's expressed forgiveness, and his compliance with judicial interim release conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and noting the importance of conditional sentences in addressing the over-incarceration of Black offenders.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements from a deceased declarant, Lori Parker, against the accused, Michael Wentworth, who is charged with manslaughter and other offences.

The court considered two material aspects of Parker's statements to her then-husband, Robert Parker: (1) that she gave the accused information about the victim, Henrietta Knight, having money and plotted with him to steal it; and (2) that the accused threatened her family if she disclosed this.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court found the first statement substantively reliable due to a lack of motive to fabricate and strong corroboration from the accused's own statements to an undercover officer.

Consequently, the first statement was admitted for the truth of its contents.

However, the second statement regarding threats was deemed unreliable due to a plausible motive for fabrication (to prevent Robert Parker from going to the police) and lack of corroboration, and was therefore admitted only for the fact that it was said, not for its truth.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences spanning 1995 to 2001, including manslaughter, bank robbery, car bombing, and two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on confessions the accused made to an undercover officer and a police agent during a 'Mr. Big' operation in 2018-2019.

The court carefully assessed the reliability of these confessions, finding them compelling, detailed, and corroborated by independent evidence.

The accused was found guilty of the robbery of Henrietta Knight (but acquitted of her manslaughter due to a gap in medical evidence regarding causation), the TD Bank robbery, the car bombing of David Allan's vehicle, and the first-degree murders of Richard Kimball and Stephen St. Denis.

Mr. Gidharry was sentenced for attempted murder after attacking his plant manager with samurai swords, causing significant physical and emotional injuries.

He had also pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and carrying concealed weapons, which were conditionally stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors including premeditation, use of deadly weapons, and severe victim impact, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, employment, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to the pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 17 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 9 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

A youth offender (I.A.) was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered sentencing principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), including diminished moral blameworthiness, rehabilitation, and proportionality.

The Crown sought a nine-month custody and supervision order, while the defence sought probation or a deferred custody order.

The court determined that a deferred custody order was unavailable because the sexual assault caused serious bodily harm, including psychological harm, to the complainant.

Reviewing case law on youth sexual assault sentencing, the court found that a probation order alone would not be proportionate or adequately address rehabilitation, reintegration, specific deterrence, and denunciation.

The court imposed a custody and supervision order of 225 days (150 days open custody, 75 days supervision), followed by 12 months probation, a DNA order, and a no-weapons order.

During a trial for robbery, the defence sought to cross-examine a police officer about other suspects identified early in the investigation to raise a reasonable doubt about identity.

The Crown objected, arguing the defence needed to establish relevance and admissibility first.

The trial judge ruled the questioning impermissible, finding the proposed evidence lacked logical relevance and invited mere speculation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that the defence must establish a sufficient connection between the crime charged and the third-party suspect before pursuing such cross-examination.

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements from the deceased victim and the post-mortem report of an unavailable pathologist in a manslaughter trial.

The court admitted the victim's statements, finding they met the criteria for spontaneous utterances and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, with sufficient markers of threshold reliability.

However, the court excluded the pathologist's report, concluding that the inability to cross-examine the expert on his baldly stated opinion regarding the cause of death would cause significant prejudice to the accused, outweighing its probative value.

The appellant, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed his conviction, alleging reversible misdirection in the jury instruction on after-the-fact conduct.

The appellant had dismembered and disposed of the victim's body after her death, which he claimed was due to an overdose, fearing police scrutiny.

The Court of Appeal found that the after-the-fact conduct evidence was relevant and admissible to infer unlawful causation of death and mens rea for murder.

The trial judge's instructions on drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence, including after-the-fact conduct, were deemed adequate.

The Court also found no reversible error in the absence of a specific "bad character" caution, given the direct connection of the conduct to the charge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month undercover police investigation involving a police agent and an undercover officer.

The accused was charged with three homicides, a bank robbery, and a car bombing.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart and found that the statements met the threshold for reliability, their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect, and the police conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The statements were ruled admissible.

This case concerns a criminal trial where the accused, Eden Gidharry, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and carrying concealed weapons but not guilty to attempted murder.

The court, sitting without a jury, assessed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim during a violent attack with samurai swords.

The court considered the premeditated nature of the attack, the target, the severity and location of the victim's injuries, and the accused's utterances, ultimately concluding that the intent to murder was established.

The Crown applied for an order to protect the identities of a civilian police agent and an undercover officer involved in the investigation of a criminal case against the accused, Michael Wentworth, who faced charges including manslaughter, first-degree murder, robbery, and arson.

The application was brought under sections 486.31(1) and 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused did not oppose the order, and no media intervened.

The court granted the order, finding it was in the interest of the proper administration of justice to protect the safety and security of the police agent and undercover officer from intimidation or retaliation, while balancing this need with the open court principle and freedom of expression.

The order specified terms for pseudonyms, non-disclosure of identifying information, publication bans, and restrictions on recording and access to exhibits.

The accused was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, assault, forcible confinement, and choking, arising from an incident at his apartment involving his former partner.

The Crown relied heavily on text messages sent between the parties after the incident, arguing the accused's failure to deny the complainant's accusations constituted adoptive admissions by silence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, corroborated by the text messages and photographs of her injuries and torn clothing.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon, assault, forcible confinement, and choking.

Michele Fiorilli appealed his convictions for four counts of fraud related to two series of real estate transactions, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The transactions involved fraudulently obtained mortgage funds from the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), with losses ultimately borne by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

The appellant alleged counsel prevented him from testifying, lost crucial evidence, failed to raise a defence theory, failed to pursue disclosure, and incompetently discredited witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish the factual, performance, or prejudice components of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.

The two accused brothers were convicted of aggravated assault after brutally attacking a defenceless victim by kicking him in the head multiple times.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought conditional sentences.

The court considered the extreme violence of the attack, the mitigating factors including the offenders' lack of significant criminal records, their employment, and remorse, as well as the collateral immigration consequences for one offender and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison conditions.

The court sentenced both offenders to 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, charged with murder, sought a second bail review after his initial application was denied.

The court considered new evidence constituting a material change in circumstances, including a new supervision plan with his parents as sureties, their relocation to Oshawa to distance him from the crime scene, substantial financial pledges, and significant support from family friends.

Additionally, the court considered the increased vulnerability of the applicant, who suffers from asthma and bronchitis, to COVID-19 in detention.

The court found the new plan sufficient to address public confidence concerns and granted bail with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after border officers found liquid cocaine in three duty-free liquor bottles he brought from Jamaica.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused knew the bottles contained cocaine.

Although the court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, it found that the Crown's circumstantial evidence failed to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Specifically, the court noted the lack of evidence regarding how the cocaine bypassed Jamaican airport security and the accused's calm demeanour when he absentmindedly left the duty-free box unattended at a customs kiosk.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after returning to Canada from Jamaica with four tins containing the drug.

The accused admitted to importing the tins but claimed she did not know they contained cocaine, believing she was transporting non-drug items for a friend.

The defence sought to introduce expert psychological evidence regarding the accused's intellectual capacity to support her lack of knowledge, which the court ruled inadmissible as unnecessary for assessing credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt about her knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was acquitted.