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.

The Discipline Committee held a penalty hearing for a teacher found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including physically abusing a student and communicating inappropriately with a principal and a colleague.

Accepting a joint submission, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a six-month suspension, and terms requiring the completion of coursework on anger management and professional boundaries before returning to teaching.

The member was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the College.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by using inappropriate physical force on a student with special needs and by communicating unprofessionally with his principal and a fellow teacher.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member aggressively removed headphones from the student's head and pulled him out of his chair, constituting physical abuse.

The Committee also found that the Member engaged in angry and aggressive confrontations with his principal and a colleague, failing to treat them with respect and dignity.

The Committee concluded that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, physically abused a student, failed to comply with the Education Act, and engaged in unprofessional conduct.

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.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a historical sexual assault that occurred in 1991.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge fairly assessed the credibility of the witnesses using the W.(D.) framework and that there was a clear evidentiary basis for the conviction.

The accused were charged with multiple offences under the Canada Small Business Financing Act arising from three government‑guaranteed small business loans obtained between 2005 and 2006.

The Crown alleged that false equipment invoices were submitted to banks to obtain the loans and that the proceeds were diverted through companies controlled by the accused rather than used for legitimate equipment purchases.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the invoices were fabricated and that the accused jointly participated in a scheme to obtain loans through false representations.

However, the court held that the evidence did not establish laundering of proceeds of crime because the Crown failed to prove an intent to conceal or convert the funds rather than merely distribute them.

One accused was convicted on counts relating to the latter two loans and acquitted on the first loan due to identification issues, while the other accused was convicted of participating in the fraudulent loan applications but acquitted of laundering counts.

The defendants, Mohammad Mehdi Toozhy and Sameen Siddiqi, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges relating to three bank loans obtained under the federal small business financing program.

The Crown alleged the defendants used false invoices to obtain loans for equipment that was never purchased, and instead diverted the funds to themselves and others.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict and found that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict each defendant on each charge.

The applications for directed verdicts were dismissed.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, admitted to professional misconduct for stealing money and gift cards from the home of a vulnerable client while providing home care.

The Member had previously pled guilty to criminal theft and paid restitution.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the conduct disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for four months, and subjected to conditions including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.

The appellant appealed convictions for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay and in finding that breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the allocation of delay, including institutional delay, defence-caused adjournments, and delays arising from disclosure issues related to a police officer’s Drug Recognition Expert training.

The court concluded the trial judge did not err in characterizing the delay or in determining that the overall delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The court also held that the police acted reasonably in obtaining breath samples approximately 1 hour and 37 minutes after arrest and that the trial judge properly inferred that the delay was explained by operational circumstances at the police station.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with failing to stop after an accident, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a series of collisions while driving with low blood sugar due to diabetes.

The accused admitted the actus reus but argued he lacked the necessary mens rea because he became disoriented due to hypoglycemia.

The court found the accused was aware that his blood sugar level had become low and nevertheless made a conscious decision to continue driving despite knowing the risks.

Expert evidence established that symptoms of disorientation would arise minutes after awareness of low blood sugar, leaving sufficient time to pull over.

The court held the accused’s conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent driver and found him guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, but acquitted him of failing to stop.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The appellant also argued that the trial judge’s “unorthodox” approach to hearing the application created a reasonable apprehension of bias because the judge outlined his preliminary views after reviewing the written materials before hearing full submissions.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s conduct reflected preparation rather than predisposition and that counsel had a full opportunity to make submissions.

The court further found no error in the trial judge’s attribution of delay or assessment of prejudice.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal judge, which upheld his conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of general significance to the administration of justice, nor did the trial judge commit any clear error of law.

The appellant appealed an order regarding compensation in a class action.

The appeal was resolved on consent, with the appellant abandoning his claim for compensation in excess of $95,000.

Class counsel consented to a payment of $95,000 to the appellant on a quantum meruit basis, to be paid from funds set aside for class counsel and appellant compensation.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member consented to the withdrawal.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.