Joseph Callaghan

The accused drove a rented van down a busy sidewalk in Toronto, killing 10 people and injuring 16 others.

He admitted to the acts but raised a defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing that his Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court found that while ASD qualifies as a mental disorder under s. 16, the accused did not lack the capacity to rationally evaluate his actions.

He knew his actions were legally and morally wrong but chose to commit them to achieve notoriety.

The NCR defence failed, and the accused was found guilty of 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder.

The defence brought a motion for a sealing order and in camera proceedings during the testimony of their key expert witness, a US-based psychiatrist.

The expert issued an ultimatum that he would withdraw from the case unless his video recordings of the accused were sealed and shielded from public broadcast, citing concerns about copycat violence, notoriety, and stigmatization of the autism community.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that while the expert's concerns did not themselves justify a sealing order, his threat to withdraw would deprive the accused of his only defence, thereby creating a substantial risk to the administration of justice.

The court reluctantly granted the motion to preserve the accused's right to a fair trial, balancing it against the open court principle by implementing limited restrictions on public access to the video exhibits.

During a trial for multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder, the Crown brought an application for the disclosure of audio and video recordings made by defence psychiatric experts during their interviews with the accused and his family.

The accused had raised a defence of not criminally responsible under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the recordings were protected by litigation privilege, but that this privilege would be waived if the experts were called to testify or if the recordings were used by a witness to refresh their memory.

The court ordered that the recordings must be disclosed to the Crown immediately upon any of the experts being called to testify.

The defence applied for a publication ban on the accused's video-recorded statement to the police and a sealing order for information found on electronic devices seized during a search warrant execution.

The media opposed both orders.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that the defence failed to establish a serious risk to the administration of justice that necessitated a publication ban or sealing order.

The court emphasized the presumption of open court proceedings and the importance of freedom of the press.

Both applications were dismissed, with a temporary extension granted to allow for potential appeals.

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 offender was convicted of second degree murder after striking and dragging a gas station attendant with his vehicle while fleeing a gas theft.

The Crown sought a 17-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the offender's conduct shockingly callous and noted his lengthy criminal record, probationary status at the time of the offence, and three-year evasion of arrest as aggravating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, along with weapons prohibition and DNA orders.

During a trial for second degree murder arising from a gas theft where the attendant was struck and dragged by a vehicle, the accused sought to have dangerous driving causing death left with the jury as an included offence.

The accused admitted to driving the vehicle but denied knowing he had struck the victim.

The court analyzed sections 662(3) and (5) of the Criminal Code and concluded that section 662(3) strictly limits the available included offences on a murder charge to manslaughter or infanticide.

The request to leave dangerous driving causing death as an included offence was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with five counts of attempted murder and gun-related offences arising from a targeted shooting incident on April 16, 2015, in which five victims were shot at close range outside a residence.

The defendant contested committal, arguing there was no evidence he attempted to kill the victims or was aware of the plan to shoot them.

The defendant was the driver of the getaway vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the defendant to stand trial on all counts, determining that while the defendant did not personally fire the weapons, there was compelling circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference arose that he knew of and was complicit in the plan to kill the victims.

The defendant pleaded guilty to twelve serious charges arising from two shooting incidents in northwest Toronto on April 15-16, 2015.

On April 15, he participated in an attempted murder at Mount Olive Drive.

On April 16, he participated in a more serious attack at Driftwood Court where five people were shot.

The defendant was sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment, with the sentence structured to reflect the gravity of the offences, the number of victims, the use of firearms, and the defendant's breach of probation and prohibition orders.

The court emphasized that the defendant's actions constituted attempted murder with the same moral culpability as murder, and that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing considerations.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an armed robbery of an armoured car service.

The robbery was carefully planned and executed by four accomplices, including the accused who provided inside information and access credentials.

The accused was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $175,000, and a restitution order of $175,000.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing principles given the gravity and planning involved in the crime.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash their committal for trial on a charge of first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

They conceded that evidence supported committal for second degree murder but argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by finding evidence capable of supporting planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court held that certiorari is only available where a preliminary inquiry judge commits an accused without any evidence of an essential element or relies on irrational inferences.

The court concluded the hearing judge properly distinguished between speculation and rational inference and applied the correct circumstantial evidence test.

Viewing the evidence as a whole, a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer planning and deliberation.

The applications were dismissed.

The Crown sought to commit the two accused to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The accused attended a house party where the deceased allegedly pointed a gun at them.

The Crown alleged the accused formulated a plan to take the gun from the host and shoot the deceased.

The accused subsequently beat the host outside, took the gun, and shot the deceased through a window.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, aiding and abetting, and planning and deliberation to commit both accused to stand trial for first degree murder.

A police officer with 24 years of exemplary service pleaded guilty to assault after kicking and stepping on a restrained, intoxicated prisoner in custody.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence to denounce the conduct, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that while the assault was a gross breach of trust requiring denunciation, the minimal violence, absence of injury, momentary loss of control, and officer's exemplary record made a discharge appropriate in the circumstances.