Julianna Schiller

The accused was tried on firearms charges arising after police responded to a possible gunshots call and pursued him when he fled during an attempted investigative interaction.

He argued that the initial police conduct amounted to arbitrary detention motivated by racial profiling and that he did not know a satchel he carried contained a loaded handgun.

The court applied the detention framework under s. 9 of the Charter and held there was no physical or psychological detention before flight, and that the later arrest was supported by reasonable grounds.

The court rejected the defence account as implausible and contrary to common sense, found knowing possession and control proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and entered convictions on the ammunition-possession and prohibition-order counts while conditionally staying the overlapping possession count under Kienapple.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, sought disclosure of the contents of cell phones seized from the victims' vehicle.

The Crown had categorized the contents and withheld certain materials as clearly irrelevant.

The trial judge declined to personally review the voluminous digital materials, holding that where the defence articulates an issue to which a category of materials might be relevant, the Crown fails to discharge its burden of proving clear irrelevance.

The court ordered the disclosure of most disputed categories, limited to the four-week period authorized by the search warrants.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of publishing an intimate image without consent after posting explicit photos and videos of his former partner on Reddit.

The victim suffered significant emotional distress, anxiety, and professional disruption as a result of the unauthorized publication.

Although the Crown sought a four-month custodial sentence, the court emphasized the principle of restraint given the offender's youth, lack of a criminal record, and extensive rehabilitative efforts.

Ultimately, the court suspended the passing of sentence, placing the offender on probation for 18 months with strict conditions, and declined to make DNA or sex offender registration orders.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant, Aaron Stewart, brought a motion challenging the facial validity of a search warrant for his residence at 270 Church Street, Belleville, arguing it was deficient for failing to specify the unit to be searched in a multi-unit dwelling.

Police obtained the warrant believing it was a single dwelling, but discovered it contained two Airbnb units upon execution.

They confined their search to the applicant's unit (Unit A) and found drugs and currency.

The court found no Section 8 Charter breach, distinguishing the case from R. v. Ting and aligning it with R. v. Iraheta, as the police acted reasonably and confined their search to the target's unit.

Alternatively, if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under Section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of the conduct, impact on the accused, and society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Kadah Dematas, was charged with four counts related to offences committed during his arrest by police officers, including assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial focused on the accused's knowledge that the complainants were police officers, whether his actions were a reflex, and if he acted in self-defence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, concluding that he intentionally assaulted both officers, knowing they were police, and was not acting in self-defence or reflexively.

Dematas was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Subramaniam, and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Miller.

He was found not guilty of assault with a weapon against Detective Constable Miller.

The matter was adjourned for sentencing.