Jon McGrath

The court found Rysard Rzadkowski not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of aggravated assault and weapons dangerous, following an incident in which he stabbed his landlord.

The decision turned on whether the Crown had proven the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court concluded that, while the attack was premeditated and the injuries were life-threatening, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rzadkowski intended to kill the complainant.

The court accepted the complainant’s account as credible and reliable, and found the accused’s explanations to be implausible and contradicted by the evidence.

The accused, charged with firearms trafficking, sought a bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The reviewing judge found no error of law in the original bail judge's decision but concluded that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The accused presented a new release plan involving house arrest, two suitable sureties, and an ankle monitor.

The court held that this new plan was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the accused's release.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

The applicant proposed a house arrest plan with his aunt and father as sureties.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the proposed release plan unworkable due to the sureties' financial limitations, the applicant's lack of employment prospects, and the fact that one of the firearms was found on the proposed surety's property.

The applicant sought a bail review after his mother withdrew as his surety due to personal tensions, resulting in his detention.

The Justice of the Peace had previously rejected a proposal for the applicant's step-father to act as surety while living in the same residence.

The Superior Court found that the applicant had never breached his release conditions and that the issues were interpersonal rather than related to bail compliance.

The court granted the bail review, allowing the applicant's step-father and cousin to act as sureties with a combined pledge of $2,000.

The accused applied for a detention order review seeking reinstatement of bail after a justice of the peace revoked earlier releases under s. 524 of the Criminal Code following new allegations of uttering threats while on bail.

The applicant argued that one charge had been improperly before the court and that subsequent developments constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier hearing and found no factual or legal error in the justice of the peace’s decision and no merit to allegations of fraud or improper evidence.

The court also held that no material change in circumstances had been established and that the proposed release plan, consisting only of supervision through the Toronto Bail Program without a surety, failed to address concerns under the secondary ground.

Detention remained justified due to the substantial likelihood of re‑offending and risks to public safety.

The offender was convicted of historical sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching against a child who was 9 to 12 years old at the time.

The abuse occurred over a two-year period while the offender lived with the victim's family.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and the abuse was prolonged and frequent.

The court sentenced the offender to three and a half years' imprisonment, with six months' credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of three years in the penitentiary, along with SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition, and s. 161 orders.