John Navarrete

Richard Samuels and Tafari Minott pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the shooting death of Osman Bangura.

The Crown sought eight-year sentences, while defence counsel requested six years.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the use and disposal of illegal firearms and Samuels' youth record, and mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, self-defence concerns (though disproportionate force was used), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a six-year sentence on both offenders, with credit for time served, resulting in remaining sentences of approximately 2 years 9.5 months for Samuels and 3 years 8.5 months for Minott.

Both were also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

The applicant brought a Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a firearm.

The warrants were based almost entirely on tips from two confidential informants, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted to protect their identities.

The court found that the police failed to adequately corroborate the informants' tips and lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe a firearm would be found at the target address.

Concluding that the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated, the court applied the Grant framework and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 after borrowing over $1.5 million from various acquaintances, ostensibly for short-term mortgage loans, and subsequently declaring bankruptcy.

The Crown alleged the accused deceived the lenders and gambled the funds away.

The Superior Court of Justice acquitted the accused, finding that while he likely took advantage of the lenders and had a gambling problem, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific funds borrowed were gambled away or used for purposes other than what was represented.

The accused, Bill Kastanis, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being arrested with 15 kilograms of cocaine.

He denied knowledge of the contents, claiming he believed he was picking up gold under duress from a person named Carlos.

The court found numerous inconsistencies between Kastanis's trial testimony and his police statement, discrediting his evidence.

The court concluded that Kastanis either knew the contents of the bags or was wilfully blind to them, considering the high value and quantity of the drugs.

Consequently, Kastanis was found guilty of the offence.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred in February 2018.

After evidence was heard over five days in February 2020, the defendant requested that closing submissions be heard by audioconference rather than in person, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the geographic dispersal of parties and counsel.

The Crown opposed but remained circumspect.

The court considered jurisdiction, the open court principle, and practical considerations under Part XXII.01 of the Criminal Code, ultimately granting the request to proceed by audioconference supplemented by written submissions, subject to specific guidelines regarding observers, conduct, and notification procedures.

This is a sentencing decision for a serious domestic assault.

The offender, Kostantinos Tountzios, pleaded guilty to assaulting his common-law spouse, causing significant injuries including a fractured arm and concussion.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged and vicious nature of the assault, the breach of trust, and the prevention of calling 911.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, genuine remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary objectives, alongside specific deterrence and rehabilitation, noting the offender's alcohol abuse as an explanation for his behaviour, not a mitigating factor.

A joint submission was accepted.

The offender was convicted by a jury of armed robbery following a planned home invasion where the victims were held at gunpoint and one was shot twice.

The offender acted as the getaway driver and planner, recruiting younger individuals to carry out the robbery.

The court applied the 4 to 13 year sentencing range for home invasions, noting the severe physical and psychological impact on the victims and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, less 6 months credit for time spent on house arrest, resulting in an effective sentence of 8.5 years.

The applicant, charged with drug offences arising from an alleged internal pharmacy theft, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a warrantless search of his backpack incident to arrest and a subsequent warranted search of his home.

The applicant argued his arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on information from a private investigator and police observations.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.