Jonathan Michael Pyzer

The young person pleaded guilty to willfully causing unnecessary suffering to an animal after stomping on a bird.

At the time of the offence, the young person was unhoused and experiencing significant hardship.

The Crown initially sought a custodial sentence under the exceptional cases provision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but proceeded summarily, precluding a custodial sentence.

The court emphasized the young person's diminished moral culpability, significant rehabilitation efforts, and lack of reoffending.

A judicial reprimand was imposed to hold the young person accountable while promoting long-term reintegration.

The court sentenced Neng Jia Jin for the first degree murder of Vanessa Kurpiewska and the attempted murder of Sulakshana Srijeyarah, both committed on December 8, 2022, on Toronto public transit.

Jin pleaded guilty, avoiding a lengthy trial.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years was imposed for murder, and 20 years’ imprisonment (concurrent) for attempted murder.

The court reviewed the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles, emphasizing the gravity of the offences, the profound impact on victims and the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

This decision involves the sentencing of P.M. following convictions for counselling sexual touching, sexual assault, sexual interference, and making child pornography involving a single victim who was the daughter of P.M.'s partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, surreptitious video recording, and significant impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included family support, counselling efforts, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA reporting, firearm prohibitions, and a 20-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code restricting contact with minors and certain locations.

This youth court decision addresses the acquittal of A.B., a young person charged with multiple sexual assault offences, where the central issue was the identity of the perpetrator.

Despite the Crown’s reliance on circumstantial evidence including phone communications and presence at the crime scene, the trial judge found significant discrepancies between the suspect description and A.B.’s appearance, notably his age and physical features.

Crucially, DNA evidence excluded A.B. as the source of male DNA found on the victim.

The judge emphasized the frailties of eyewitness description evidence, the lack of investigation into alternative suspects, and the ethical responsibilities of the Crown in youth prosecutions.

The decision highlights the importance of rigorous proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving vulnerable young accused persons.

The defendant, Franklin Kusi, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude fentanyl evidence obtained from a vehicle search, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown argued the vehicle was "apparently abandoned" and the search was a lawful inventory search under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the vehicle was "apparently abandoned" and the inventory search was authorized by law and conducted reasonably, thus no s. 8 Charter breach occurred.

Alternatively, if a breach did occur, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the Grant factors favoured admission.

The defendant's Charter application was dismissed.

The accused, P.M., was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and making child pornography.

During a voir dire, the court found P.M.'s video-recorded statement to police voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The police failed to provide P.M. with a reasonable opportunity to contact his chosen counsel, instead steering him to duty counsel without offering alternatives or documenting his consent to forgo waiting for his preferred lawyer.

The court found the police conduct serious, reflecting an institutional failure, and that the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

Three youthful first offenders, aged 18 and 19, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the severe impact of fentanyl in the community alongside the offenders' youth, prospects for rehabilitation, and social context evidence.

The court heavily criticized the overly restrictive bail conditions imposed on the offenders, granting them 18 months of credit.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the offenders to 3 years, 2 years, and 3 years in custody, emphasizing restraint in sentencing youthful offenders while acknowledging the objective gravity of wholesale fentanyl trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple counts of sexual interference, sexual assault, and sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from prolonged sexual abuse of his two adopted daughters beginning when they were children.

The abuse spanned decades, involved repeated sexual assaults, pregnancies resulting in three children, and sustained manipulation to conceal the offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for sexual offences against children and applied the guidance in Friesen concerning substantial penitentiary terms.

Considering aggravating factors including abuse of trust, prolonged offending, pregnancies, and profound harm to victims, the court imposed a global sentence of 22 years less pre‑sentence custody credit.

The request for delayed parole eligibility under s. 743.6 was denied.

The Crown sought certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on two counts of indecent assault, and to compel the judge to proceed with the inquiry.

The preliminary inquiry judge had refused an adjournment requested by the Crown, which was necessary because the complainant was unwilling to testify remotely due to privacy concerns, and the judge erroneously believed he lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions or accommodate an in-person hearing.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional errors by failing to recognize his inherent powers to safeguard proceedings, relying on irrelevant factors (Crown's non-use of s. 545(1) of the Criminal Code), and misapplying the Darville adjournment test by introducing speculative future conditions.

The application was granted, the discharge order quashed, and the preliminary inquiry judge was directed to proceed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an outbreak at the detention centre, and a new release plan including electronic monitoring and additional sureties.

The original bail hearing had already considered the pandemic.

The court found no error in the initial detention order and determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances under the modified Palmer criteria, as the updated information regarding COVID-19 and the enhanced release plan did not sufficiently alter the primary and secondary ground concerns, particularly given the applicant's history of non-compliance and the seriousness of the fraud charges.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and continued detention was ordered.

Daniel Currant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marihuana and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police seized over 1 kg of cocaine, nearly 4 kg of cutting agent, and 351 cannabis plants.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity and high purity of cocaine, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, lack of prior record, and health issues.

Despite his cocaine addiction, the court found his motivation was financial gain.

The Crown sought 8 years, the defence 4 years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years in a penitentiary, less four months credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a total remaining sentence of five years and eight months.

Orders for forfeiture, s. 109 prohibition, and DNA were also issued.

The applicant, O.M., sought to sever counts on a single indictment relating to two different complainants, Ms. D.K. and Ms. J.M., alleging various violent and sexual offences.

The court granted the severance motion, finding no factual or legal nexus between the sets of allegations, which were separated by five years.

The judge noted the risk of cross-pollination of credibility assessments and propensity reasoning if the charges were tried together, concluding that severance was required in the interests of justice despite limiting jury instructions.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his former common-law spouse.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally slammed a washing machine door on the complainant's finger, causing a tear requiring five stitches.

The court found that while the accused deliberately slammed the door out of frustration during an argument, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to catch the complainant's finger or was reckless as to whether the door would injure her.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding the element of intent.

The applicants, jointly charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop.

The court found that the police stop was a pretext based on racial profiling, constituting arbitrary detention (s. 9) and an unlawful search (s. 8).

Additionally, the applicants' rights to be informed of the reason for detention and to counsel (s. 10(a) and (b)) were infringed.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that the serious Charter violations, particularly racial profiling, warranted the exclusion of all evidence obtained from the vehicle search and any subsequent utterances.

Following a trial and dangerous offender proceeding, the offender had previously been declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to a custodial term and long-term supervision order.

The court discovered that sentence had inadvertently not been imposed on one count despite a conviction having been entered.

The parties agreed the court was not functus and could correct the omission.

The court amended the earlier sentencing reasons to impose sentence on the omitted count while maintaining the overall totality of the sentence.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences against his intimate partner, including aggravated assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

The offender had a lengthy criminal history involving domestic violence, an antisocial personality disorder, and chronic substance abuse.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

However, considering the offender's cognitive limitations, his expressions of remorse, and the availability of intensive treatment and supervision in the penitentiary and community, the court concluded there was a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 10 years and 1 day (after credit for pre-sentence custody) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused brought a voir dire challenging the admissibility of a police statement following arrest for sexual assault, alleging a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter and involuntariness due to an alleged inducement that he would be home by dinner if he cooperated.

The court found that police adequately informed the accused of his right to counsel and properly clarified the right when questions were raised during the interview.

The judge rejected the accused’s evidence that an inducement had been made and found the officer’s testimony credible.

Applying the voluntariness framework from leading Supreme Court authorities, the court concluded the interview was conducted respectfully without threats, oppression, or inducements.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.

The offender was sentenced for two counts of sexual touching of his 14-year-old daughter under section 151 of the Criminal Code, one count of inviting his daughter to touch his body with her mouth for a sexual purpose under section 152, one count of sexual intercourse with his daughter under section 155, and one count of breaching a non-contact condition of his recognizance under section 145(3).

The sexual offences occurred between June 18, 2013 and July 30, 2013, with the breach occurring between August 5, 2013 and October 28, 2013.

The offender had a prior criminal history of sexual offences against children dating back to 1987.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years in penitentiary for the sexual offences, minus credit for pre-trial detention, plus 60 days consecutive for the breach of recognizance.

The accused was tried on a twelve-count indictment arising from allegations of repeated domestic violence against his intimate partner.

The evidence included testimony from the complainant, a supporting witness, and medical records documenting injuries including a fractured jaw, kidney laceration, spinal fractures, and extensive bruising.

The court assessed credibility under the W.(D.) framework and considered the dynamics of domestic abuse, including delayed disclosure and continued contact with the accused.

The judge held that the jaw fracture did not meet the legal definition of “wounding” because the evidence did not establish a break in the skin or tissue, but it constituted assault causing bodily harm.

The court convicted the accused on multiple counts including aggravated assault relating to a kidney injury, assault with a weapon, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, forcible confinement, and related offences, while acquitting on some counts where reasonable doubt remained.

The accused applied to exclude drug evidence and statements obtained following a police stop and search of his vehicle, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

Police detained the accused based on a complaint that a suspicious individual had collected a package delivered by Canada Post and later located the accused’s vehicle.

Officers searched the trunk and opened the package before arrest, discovering heroin.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest at the time of the search and that the detention was arbitrary and exceeded the permissible scope of investigative detention.

Finding serious Charter violations and applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the drug evidence and the accused’s post‑detention utterances.