Joseph Giuliana

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Anson Keung to a global 30-month jail term for multiple firearms offences, including carrying a concealed firearm, occupying a vehicle knowing a prohibited weapon was present, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm without authorization.

The court emphasized the significant public safety threat posed by loaded handguns in public, applying general deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing objectives.

Despite mitigating factors such as Keung's youth, lack of criminal record, and good behaviour on bail, the court found a conditional sentence insufficient.

The sentence accounted for pre-trial custody and house arrest credit.

Additionally, the firearm and ammunition were forfeited, and a 10-year weapons prohibition was imposed.

Keung was also ordered to provide a DNA sample for the national databank due to the serious nature of the offences.

The defendant, Anson Keung, was charged with firearms offences after a loaded handgun was found during a pat-down search following an arrest based on mistaken identity.

The defence brought a Charter application, arguing arbitrary detention (s. 9) and unlawful search (s. 8), seeking exclusion of the evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the police's actions, including the investigative detention and pat-down search, were reasonable given the dynamic situation and concerns for officer safety, particularly due to the actual suspect's history with firearms.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty on all three charges.

Nahom Mussie pleaded guilty to human trafficking, possession of fentanyl for trafficking, and obstruct justice.

The human trafficking involved the exploitation of a vulnerable, drug-addicted young woman (S.M.) over several months, with the accused controlling her activities and providing her with fentanyl.

S.M. later died of a fentanyl overdose.

The obstruction of justice charge stemmed from Mussie providing a fraudulent employment letter for a bail variation, obtained by exploiting another drug user.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a six-year global sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's extreme vulnerability and the accused's misconduct while on bail, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and lack of prior criminal record.

The court imposed the jointly recommended six-year global sentence, granting credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The applicant, Nahom Mussie, facing human trafficking and fentanyl possession charges, brought an application alleging breaches of his Charter rights related to his arrest, search warrants, strip search, and right to counsel, and sought a remedy for lost police notes.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrants, despite significant errors in the Informations to Obtain, were valid after amplification and redaction, as the errors were inadvertent.

The strip search was also found justified.

A minor breach of the right to counsel was found, but the remedy was limited to excluding the applicant's answer to a single question.

The application for a stay due to lost notes was deemed premature.

Ultimately, the evidence seized from the search warrants was deemed admissible.

The accused, R.A.-M., was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault of a 15-year-old victim.

The sexual assault charge was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court considered sentencing principles for child sexual abuse, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Friesen.

Despite the persistence of the acts, the court viewed them as being at the lower end of intrusiveness.

Considering the accused's good character, employment, and family support, an intermittent sentence was deemed appropriate.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days intermittent, 2 years probation, SOIRA registration for 15 years, a s. 161.1(b) order, and a DNA sample order.

The applicants, convicted of second-degree murder, sought a mistrial based on the Court of Appeal's decision in *R. v. Chouhan*, which clarified that former provisions regarding peremptory challenges remained operative during their jury selection.

The trial judge acknowledged the probable reversible error but denied the mistrial application, holding that a trial judge lacks jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after a jury verdict for an error of law, as such remedies are the purview of the Court of Appeal.

The court emphasized that a jury verdict is "sacrosanct" and a trial judge's post-verdict jurisdiction is "extremely limited," applying only to issues concerning the integrity of the deliberative process or the rendering of the verdict itself, not errors of law committed during trial.

The Crown applied to admit discreditable conduct evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence consisted of video surveillance showing the accused in possession of a long-barrelled firearm at a motel the day before the homicide.

The court found that the evidence was highly probative of the accused's possession, concealment, and familiarity with the weapon, which was relevant to the issues of intention, planning, and deliberation.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and ruled the video admissible.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement arising from events at the complainant's residence over a ten-hour period.

The central issues were credibility and consent.

The complainant testified that the accused made unwanted sexual advances, blocked her exit, and engaged in non-consensual sexual activity.

The accused testified that all sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but was left in reasonable doubt as to which version of events was true, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

Following a six-day trial for a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in general damages.

The defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for non-pecuniary damages.

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim of chronic upper back pain and its impact on his employment as an RCMP officer, specifically his ability to earn overtime and train for the Emergency Response Team.

The court found that while the impairment was permanent, it did not substantially interfere with his regular employment, career training, or usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

The accused, young first-time offenders and parents, pleaded guilty to causing the death of their one-month-old infant son.

Tran pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the child twice in the face to stop him from crying, fearing discovery by his brother.

Bui pleaded guilty to failure to provide necessities of life after failing to seek immediate medical attention due to fear of family discovery of the out-of-wedlock birth.

The court imposed sentences reflecting principles of denunciation and general deterrence while considering mitigating factors including genuine remorse, guilty pleas, and the momentary nature of the assault.