John Rinaldi

This endorsement addresses the sentencing of an offender convicted of 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder.

Due to a pending Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of consecutive parole ineligibility periods under s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, the court, with agreement from all counsel, decided to proceed with the evidentiary portion of the sentencing hearing and impose the mandatory life sentence for one count of first-degree murder.

The sentencing for the remaining counts will be adjourned until the Supreme Court of Canada releases its decision in R. v. Bissonnette.

The court also deemed it appropriate to transfer the offender to a federal penitentiary.

Alek Minassian, charged with multiple counts of murder and attempted murder related to the Toronto van attack, brought a motion for disclosure of data from three password-protected electronic devices seized by the police.

The Crown argued it lacked possession or control over the encrypted data and could not disclose it without prior review due to public safety concerns, including potential child pornography and incel-related threats.

The court found the defence met the relevance test and that the Crown had possession and control of the data.

Balancing the accused's right to full answer and defence against public safety, the court ordered disclosure to defence counsel, subject to strict undertakings and conditions.

These conditions included counsel retaining custody, not providing raw data to Minassian, and a duty to report evidence of child pornography or future criminal acts by third parties to the police, with flexibility for anonymous reporting or seeking court directions.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault committed against his intimate partner in March 2017.

Following a Gardiner hearing, the court found that the assault occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.

The accused had an extensive criminal history including numerous convictions for violence against women.

The court sentenced the accused to five years custody, with credit for 884 days of pre-sentence custody at the usual 1.5 to 1 ratio, resulting in a net sentence of two years and three months.

A DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he slashed the victim's hand with a machete.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought eighteen months.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day in custody, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the use of weapons.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicant, having been convicted of fraud and money laundering, sought to bring a second s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay the day before his scheduled sentencing hearing.

His first application had been dismissed during the trial for failure to perfect.

The court dismissed the second application, finding it was an attempt to delay sentencing, failed to comply with the Practice Direction requiring such applications to be brought 60 days before trial, and was not perfected with the necessary transcripts.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar, brought an application to have the defence of self-defence put to the jury.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it lacked an evidential foundation.

The trial judge reviewed the testimony and surveillance video, which showed the accused chasing the victims and attacking them with a machete after the initial threat had subsided.

The court found that even if the accused had a subjective belief and defensive purpose, his responsive acts were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The application was dismissed as there was no air of reality to the defence.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter.

The court addressed the issue of multiple convictions, conditionally staying manslaughter and dangerous driving causing death, and entering a conviction for criminal negligence causing death.

The court also criticized the Pre-Sentence Report for inappropriate content.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and the absence of alcohol, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, and a 15-year driving prohibition.

The accused drove his vehicle through a red light at a high rate of speed, striking and killing a cyclist who had the right of way in a crosswalk.

Prior to the collision, the accused was speeding, nearly hit a school bus, and took his eyes off the road to adjust his radio.

The court found the accused's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person, showing a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter.

During the execution of a search warrant for firearms, the accused was detained but not immediately advised of her right to counsel due to officer safety concerns.

After the residence was secured, there was a further delay before she was advised of her rights.

Upon finally being advised of her rights and asked if she wished to call a lawyer, she spontaneously stated, 'I use it for protection' in reference to a firearm found in a briefcase.

The court found a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter due to the delay, but admitted the statement under s. 24(2), concluding it was voluntary, spontaneous, and would have been made regardless of the breach.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether two accused had committed offences related to possession and storage of a firearm and ammunition found during a police response to a break and enter in progress.

The accused Robinson was the former tenant of the apartment who had been evicted that morning.

The accused Williams was not present at the scene.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Robinson to trial on charges of unlawfully being in a dwelling and possession of the firearm and ammunition, but discharged Williams on all counts due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or control.