Josephine Elana Baldassi

The accused was arrested at a condominium unit during the execution of a search warrant for stolen property.

Police found fentanyl, heroin, carfentanil, a handgun, and ammunition in the unit.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest, denial of right to counsel, and unreasonable strip search.

The court found breaches of ss. 9, 10(b), and 8 of the Charter, but declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of possessing the drugs for the purpose of trafficking based on constructive possession, but acquitted him of the firearm and breach of release order charges due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was the victim of a drive-by shooting and sought refuge in his uncle's vehicle.

Police responded to a 911 call and administered first aid in a public parking lot.

The uncle informed police that the accused had brought a bag into the vehicle, which police searched and found to contain a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and oxycodone.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the police acted properly as first responders and the accused lacked standing to challenge the search.

On the trial proper, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found him guilty of all drug and firearm offences based on circumstantial evidence establishing knowledge and control.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a large quantity of drugs, a loaded gun, and $40,000 in cash in a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the hidden compartment or the contraband, suggesting that his former intimate partner or her associates planted the items to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable and found that the only reasonably plausible inference on the totality of the evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and impaired operation causing bodily harm after driving the wrong way on a major highway while highly intoxicated.

The head-on collision resulted in the death of one driver and catastrophic, permanent injuries to another.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the offender's excessive speed, high blood alcohol concentration, and the extreme danger posed to multiple motorists.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years in custody and a 14-year driving prohibition.

The accused, Ameen Jazei, was found guilty of kidnapping and assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of an imitation firearm and a group attack, and mitigating factors such as his youth at the time of the offence and significant family support.

The judgment also addressed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers and Duncan credits).

The Crown sought 3.5 years in penitentiary, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence or a three-month jail term.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given a bail breach and subsequent serious offence.

A 12-month custodial sentence for kidnapping and a concurrent 5-month sentence for assault were imposed, followed by 2 years of probation.

Shuvanga Khanal pleaded guilty to three counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the multiple deaths and the extreme dangerousness of the driving (175 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, running a red light), and mitigating factors, such as the guilty plea, community support, and the offender's own serious injuries.

The Crown sought 5-6 years custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a four-year period of incarceration followed by a ten-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation in this severe case.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The applicant, Dontay Williams, brought Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence.

He alleged unlawful detention and arrest without reasonable grounds, insufficient grounds for a search warrant, an unreasonable strip search, and unreasonable delay in accessing counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest, the search warrant was valid despite a technical error in its execution timeframe, the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably, and the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable given the circumstances.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and firearm possession, brought a motion for further disclosure from the Crown.

The requested disclosure included notes from a confidential source handler (PC Neadles) and information related to an unrelated motor vehicle accident involving a person of interest (Marcus Nugent).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the confidential source notes were protected by informer privilege, which the applicant failed to overcome by demonstrating necessity for innocence or guilt.

The information related to the motor vehicle accident was deemed irrelevant to the applicant's case.

The applicant, charged with firearms and domestic violence offences, brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights during the police investigation and his subsequent arrest.

He argued that police unlawfully tracked his cell phone, viewed his apartment building's video surveillance, conducted a warrantless 'clear and hold' of his apartment, and delayed implementing his right to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the ping data or common area surveillance, and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach regarding a failure to re-read rights for an additional drug charge, but declined to stay proceedings or exclude evidence under s. 24.

Shamar Brown was convicted of drug trafficking and gun possession, including a loaded handgun with an over-capacity magazine, cocaine, Oxycontin, and Xanax for trafficking.

He had an extensive criminal record with multiple firearm convictions and was on federal parole and subject to firearm prohibitions at the time of arrest.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence argued for a 7-7.5 year sentence, reduced to 4.5 years due to harsh custody conditions and a Charter breach.

The court imposed a total sentence of 10 years, applying 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 8 years, 5 months, and 15 days remaining to serve.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal history and public threat, and limited mitigating factors, while dismissing the anti-Black racism argument due to lack of specific evidence.