John S. Struthers

This decision concerns the trial of Tamaal Japp and Moses Tesfay for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Uchenna Achioso.

The court reviews the evidence, including agreed statements of fact, expert testimony, and the credibility of key witnesses.

The main issues are the identity of the accused and the extent of their criminal liability.

The court finds both accused guilty of manslaughter, not murder, concluding that while they participated in an unlawful act leading to death, the evidence does not establish the intent or planning required for murder.

The court sentenced Lance Burkhard for second-degree murder following a guilty plea after a successful appeal of his first-degree murder conviction.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the character and rehabilitation of the offender, and the impact on the victim’s family.

The court imposed a life sentence with 12 years of parole ineligibility, considering the seriousness of the offence, Burkhard’s criminal record, his rehabilitation efforts, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant, Alden Nunes, brought an application to exclude evidence (guns, fentanyl, ecstasy) obtained via a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds to believe evidence would be found at the searched residence (21 Redvers Street, Whitby), as the police failed to establish Mr. Moore's current residency there or investigate beyond his outdated bail conditions.

Despite the absence of police bad faith, the Charter-infringing conduct was deemed serious due to the lack of investigation and the high expectation of privacy in a dwelling.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The defence applied to re-open and re-consider an earlier ruling that admitted a Super 8 video from the day before an alleged murder.

The defence offered admissions of fact under Section 650 of the Criminal Code to obviate the need for the video.

The Crown opposed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the video's unique visual probative value, particularly in demonstrating the accused's familiarity with the firearm and concerted action, extended beyond the offered admissions and justified any additional prejudicial effect.

The defendants were convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

This decision sets their parole ineligibility periods.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the use of a semi-automatic assault rifle, the public nature of the killing, elements of planning, and the criminal record of one offender, as well as prior criminal conduct involving the same firearm.

Mitigating factors included youth and difficult upbringing for one offender, and being a first offender for the other.

The court also addressed the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct under Section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and the weight to be given to jury recommendations.

Parole ineligibility was set at 16 years for Shamar Meredith and 12 years for Thulani Chizanga.

The accused, Evans Okwara, was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully importing heroin into Canada.

The Crown presented evidence including cell phone records showing knowledge of the shipment details and searches related to the delivery address, as well as a storage locker access card found in the accused's wallet, which contained additional heroin.

The accused's testimony denying knowledge and involvement was found to be inconsistent with the evidence.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed and imported heroin for trafficking.

The defendant, Kevin Deonath, was charged with second-degree murder following the shooting death of Roy Khan.

The court examined whether the Crown proved the requisite intent for murder and disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence indicated a struggle ensued after Khan pointed a loaded handgun at Deonath.

The court found that while an inference of intentional firing was available, another reasonable inference was that the gun discharged unintentionally during the struggle as Deonath defended himself.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove intent for murder and failed to disprove lawful self-defence.

Deonath was acquitted.

This criminal trial concerned charges of possession of a prohibited firearm and two prohibited extended magazines, and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two police officers, whose accounts contained critical contradictions regarding the accused's actions and the sequence of events leading to the discovery of the firearm.

The court applied principles of possession and the assessment of circumstantial evidence, particularly the guidance from R. v. Villaroman, which states that if reasonable inferences other than guilt can be drawn, the Crown has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due to the inconsistencies in police testimony, the lack of direct evidence of the accused handling the firearm, and the absence of forensic links (DNA or fingerprints), the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of or controlled the items.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation involving two complainants.

The Crown conceded committal on charges involving the first complainant.

Regarding the second complainant, the defence argued that the complainant consented to the sexual activity at the time it occurred, and that the accused was not in a position of trust or authority.

The court found that the complainant's subjective state of mind at the time of the sexual activity was determinative, and that her later retrospective characterization of the relationship as abusive did not negate consent that existed at the time.

The court also found no evidence that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the complainant despite her volunteering at his mother's martial arts facility.

All charges involving the second complainant were discharged.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The respondent was convicted of importing approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine into Canada on December 1, 2015, concealed in four containers (Metamucil, curry spice, and psyllium fibre powder) in her personal belongings upon return from Jamaica.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence sought three to five years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' incarceration at the low end of the established range for multi-kilogram cocaine importation, along with a mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the respondent's personal circumstances, community support, and pro-social conduct since arrest as mitigating factors, but found these did not warrant a departure below the applicable sentencing range given the serious nature of multi-kilogram drug importation.

The Crown charged two defendants with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The case involved circumstantial evidence of identity, including BlackBerry Messenger communications recovered from the deceased intruder's phone.

The court admitted hearsay evidence under the present intentions exception and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown established that the defendants were members of a conspiracy to commit the break-in through analysis of cryptic text messages, DNA evidence, and circumstantial connections.

Both defendants were convicted.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and simple assault committed against his former domestic partner in her home on multiple occasions between March and July 2016.

The accused also pleaded guilty to breaching a section 810.2 recognizance by failing to keep the peace and be of good behavior, and by failing to report as required.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years and 11 months prior to credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 701 days to serve.

The sentencing emphasized the serious nature of domestic violence, the accused's extensive criminal history including prior violent offences, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The accused was charged with drug and driving-related offences arising from his interaction with a co-accused.

The Crown's case relied on intercepted phone calls, surveillance evidence, and the discovery of a large quantity of drugs in the accused's vehicle following a high-speed chase.

The central issues were knowledge and credibility.

The accused testified that he was unaware of any drugs being brought into the country, that he was merely assisting his friend's brother with accommodation and transportation, and that he believed he was being chased by dangerous individuals rather than police officers.

The court found the accused's testimony compelling and credible, and determined that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the drugs or consent to their transportation.

An acquittal was entered on all counts.

The United States requested the extradition of Colin Levy for alleged involvement in MDMA distribution and cocaine importation.

The Attorney General of Canada sought a committal order under the Extradition Act.

Levy's counsel argued insufficient identification evidence, particularly concerning single photo identification.

The court found that the identification evidence, including witness testimony from someone who knew Levy and surveillance by a special agent, was not manifestly unreliable.

The court distinguished previous case law on single photo identification, noting that it is not inherently unreliable if the witness had prior knowledge of the subject, reinforcing *United States of America v. Khuc* and *R. v. Liebhardt*.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify an order for committal for extradition.

The accused, Sean Gellvear, faced 14 counts of arson and mischief related to two fires in Kensington Market.

The Crown relied on surveillance videos, witness identification, and similar fact evidence to prove identity.

The defence challenged the identification, arguing the video quality was poor and witness descriptions were inconsistent.

The court found that the video evidence was insufficient for positive identification beyond a reasonable doubt, even with non-expert recognition evidence from acquaintances.

The court emphasized that "similar" clothing or circumstances are not enough to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all counts.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

Omar Black was charged with importing cocaine after an unclaimed suitcase, bearing his name and DNA, containing 15 kg of cocaine, was discovered at Pearson Airport following his flight from Antigua.

Black denied any knowledge of the drugs, asserting he had given the suitcase to his Antiguan girlfriend months prior.

The court found Black's testimony to be incredible and incapable of raising a reasonable doubt, highlighting the implausibility of his girlfriend retaining the tagged suitcase and orchestrating such a significant drug shipment as an act of revenge.

The court concluded that the Crown had proven Black's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence, including the suitcase's ownership, identification tags, its presence on his flight, and his DNA on an item inside.

The accused were involved in a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation.

Following guilty findings based on Agreed Statements of Fact, the court proceeded to sentencing.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were emphasized, particularly given the commercial nature and significant profits involved.

The court rejected arguments to delay sentencing based on anticipated changes to marijuana laws, affirming the rule of law.

State misconduct in the investigation, while acknowledged, was deemed to have negligible impact on sentencing.

Credit was given for onerous bail conditions and the efficient conduct of the trial through Agreed Statements of Fact.

Conditional sentences were deemed inappropriate, with penitentiary sentences warranted for all accused.

The accused was originally charged with second-degree murder in the death of his son but pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court found that the accused's wrongful conduct was in mixing alcohol with prescription sleeping pills, which he knew he should not do.

The court determined this was an exceptional case where denunciation and general deterrence could be achieved without further custody, given the accused's approximately one year of pre-trial credit, his lack of criminal record, his remorse, and the absence of any history of conflict with the victim.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with maximum probation and community service.