Joseph F. Kenkel

The accused, a youth, was charged with assault and uttering a death threat arising from an incident at his high school.

The Crown's case rested on the testimony of two student witnesses who provided consistent accounts of the accused threatening to stab the complainant and make his family watch his death, followed by a physical assault involving grabbing, pushing, and slapping.

The accused testified that the complainant was the aggressor and initiated the physical confrontation without provocation.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible and reliable, while finding the accused's testimony illogical, exaggerated, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court rejected the defence submissions that the incident was consensual and that the threat was not proven, finding both charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a Canada Revenue Agency employee and audit team leader, pleaded guilty to breach of trust by a public officer, accepting secret commissions, and defrauding the Government of Canada.

Over a three-year period, the accused received approximately $1.1 million in secret commissions from businesses in exchange for using his position to manipulate tax audits and investigations.

Most egregiously, he created a false audit of the Mayor of Caledon at the request of a developer seeking to intimidate the elected official.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment; the accused sought two years less one day.

The court imposed a three-year concurrent penitentiary sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount given the breach of public trust, the sophistication and scope of the scheme, and the attempt to intimidate an elected official.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempt murder contrary to s. 239 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the victim's impact statement, the accused's prior criminal record (two robbery convictions), and mitigating factors including the guilty plea, early resolution, and personal circumstances involving substance abuse.

The court applied enhanced credit for pre-trial custody on a 1.5 to 1 basis and imposed a sentence within the range jointly submitted by counsel.

The accused was charged with driving while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer observed a vehicle idling in the driveway of a residence on a list related to prohibited drivers.

The officer stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the accused using an expired driver's license.

The accused had been prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for three years following a 2010 sentencing.

The accused raised Charter challenges regarding arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the Crown had proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death to persons within the Chabad-Lubavitch Community Centre Synagogue contrary to s. 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issue was witness credibility.

The accused made statements to a rabbi about bringing a machine gun and shooting members of the Lubavitch community, accompanied by gestures simulating firing a weapon.

The accused's own testimony was inconsistent with his agitated demeanor and unusual conduct observed by multiple witnesses at the time of the incident.

The court found the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

The applicant sought to vary his sentence for being a party to child abduction in violation of a court order.

He requested deletion of house arrest conditions, travel restrictions outside the province, and contact restrictions with his daughter and grandchildren in Poland.

The court found that the house arrest conditions had already been served.

However, the court dismissed the application to remove travel and contact restrictions, finding that granting such variation would aid in the continuation of the abduction offence and continue the risk to the children.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

The accused was convicted at trial of extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended the victim's home, left a phone number, and threatened the victim's wife, stating that if her husband did not call back they should "watch out." This initiated an escalating series of intimidation and threats designed to extort $54,000 from the victim.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence.

The court appointed an amicus to assist the unrepresented accused in identifying mitigating factors and reviewing relevant sentencing precedents.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody less credit for 79 days time served, followed by three years of probation with conditions including a prohibition on contact with the victim and a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

A young person was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and failing to comply with a youth court sentence.

The Crown's case rested on eyewitness testimony from a six-year-old witness and DNA evidence showing the alleged victim's saliva on the accused's underwear.

The accused testified that the DNA presence was explained by his use of a bloody tissue to clean himself after the alleged victim injured himself.

The court found the eyewitness credible and rejected the accused's explanation as illogical and contradicted by forensic evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts involving the sexual exploitation of a minor: invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, making available sexually explicit material to a child, and luring a child.

Over a three-week period, the 30-year-old accused engaged in online contact with a 15-year-old victim, misrepresenting his age, coercing her to create explicit images and videos, and ultimately forcing her to perform oral sex.

A search of his electronic devices revealed 76 images of child pornography and 26 images of child nudity.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA, SOIRA, and prohibition orders.

The appellant was convicted at trial of speeding contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

On appeal, the appellant raised seven grounds of error, including allegations that the Justice of the Peace erred in proceeding without counsel, failed to inform the appellant of his right to an adjournment, erred in granting an amendment to the charge, applied the wrong legal standard, and failed to adequately explain the rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appeal court found that while the Justice of the Peace applied an incorrect legal standard (strict liability instead of absolute liability), this error benefited the appellant and did not affect the verdict.

The court upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped by police following a report from two civilian witnesses who observed the accused's vehicle being driven in an erratic manner.

The Crown called evidence from the two civilian witnesses and two police officers.

The accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the credibility of the civilian witnesses.

The court found the civilian witnesses to be credible and reliable, and determined that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The court found guilt on the impaired driving charge.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for an alleged breach of his Section 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court found that over twelve months had elapsed since arrest, with the matter scheduled for a third trial date.

The court attributed approximately eleven months and twenty-two days of delay to institutional causes, including the court's failure to prioritize the matter on the second trial date.

The court also found that the applicant had suffered prejudice by being unable to afford expert toxicology evidence due to financial hardship caused by the delays.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with theft and possession of stolen property in relation to items taken from a Walmart store.

The Crown alleged that the accused aided and abetted a young person in stealing eyeliner, a watch, and infant clothing pursuant to a common intention.

The accused testified she was unaware of the theft plan and did not know the young person was stealing.

The young person, who had already pled guilty, testified the accused took no part in the theft.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on direct and circumstantial evidence, including video evidence and the accused's conduct before, during, and after the theft.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a disturbance call, police observed the accused drinking in public and warned him not to drive.

Approximately 36 minutes later, an officer observed the accused operating a vehicle and followed him to a residence.

The accused failed an approved screening device test and provided two breath samples showing readings of 112 and 113 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, both exceeding the legal limit of 80 mgs.

The accused claimed he was not driving and alleged police harassment and arbitrary detention.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as internally contradictory and found it contradicted by the credible evidence of the arresting officer.

The court found no evidence of arbitrary detention or Charter breach and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused, along with others, demanded $54,000 from the complainant by falsely claiming it was a legitimate business debt related to a shipping contract.

The accused denied direct involvement and claimed he was merely helping a friend.

The court found the complainant and his wife credible witnesses and accepted their testimony regarding the accused's involvement in making threats and demands for payment.

The court convicted the accused, finding that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to s. 249(2) of the Criminal Code following an incident at MacKenzie Health hospital.

Security officers had asked the accused to move his taxi from a fire zone.

After refusing and being placed under arrest for trespass, the accused drove into a security guard multiple times, then reversed at high speed through a hospital crosswalk, narrowly missing a pedestrian.

The central issues were witness credibility and whether the Crown proved the driving was dangerous within the statutory meaning.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible and accepted their evidence that the accused deliberately struck the security officer and drove recklessly through the crosswalk.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found the conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with 57 counts involving break and enter, theft, and assault.

Several counts were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on 25 counts, including break and enter, theft, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy.

The justice declined to commit on 23 counts due to insufficient evidence.

Additional counts were added for break and enter to Fincham Plaza mall, conspiracy to commit break and enter and theft, and counselling to commit theft in relation to stolen vehicles.

The accused applied to strike his guilty plea to impaired driving following an incident in which he drove through a red light at high speed and collided with a TTC bus.

The accused argued his plea was involuntary because he was unable to obtain an adjournment to secure a witness he believed would assist the defence.

The court found the plea was valid, informed, and voluntary.

The accused had received written instructions, conducted a proper plea inquiry on the record, and admitted the facts as alleged by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application and proceeded to sentencing.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly throwing a block of hard cheese at his wife during a domestic dispute, causing bruising.

The complainant testified she felt a blow to her side while cooking and saw the cheese on the floor.

The accused claimed his wife fell backward into the island counter and the cheese fell to the floor.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and internally consistent, while the accused's account was illogical, internally contradictory, and inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The court rejected the defence assertion that the complainant fabricated the complaint for marital advantage.

The accused was found guilty.