Karen Lau Po Hung

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking his roommate multiple times with a cricket bat during an alcohol-fuelled altercation.

The victim died from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court considered the accused's cognitive impairment, health issues, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody as mitigating factors, while noting the sustained nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim as aggravating.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, reduced to 33 months net after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

An application was brought by eight young persons to vary a previous court order to explicitly prevent media from disseminating their identifying information, including through private social media messages, in relation to charges of second-degree murder.

The court found that a reporter's actions of contacting individuals on social media and disclosing a young person's name and charges contravened the spirit of the Youth Criminal Justice Act's publication ban under section 110, even if not an intentional breach of the specific prior order.

The court clarified that "publication" under the YCJA includes indiscriminate communication on social media that risks making information known to the general public.

Donovan Shah appealed his convictions for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the search warrant affiant regarding the inclusion of information about dismissed charges, and whether the trial judge improperly used Shah's pretrial silence to assess his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to deny cross-examination and concluding that the trial judge did not rely on pretrial silence in assessing credibility.

A group of media organizations applied under section 119 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for access to the unredacted youth criminal court records of eight young persons charged with second degree murder.

The Crown and the young persons opposed the application, citing the young persons' heightened privacy interests and fair trial rights.

The court found that while the media had a valid interest in the records, granting access to the entire unredacted file at this early stage was not desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice due to the risk of irreversible harm from inadvertent dissemination of private information.

The court granted partial access to redacted records, including the charging informations and bail release orders, with identifying information removed.

The applicants, Patrick Agpoon and Shea Flemmings, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, deducting defence-caused delay, and assessing the impact of the global pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

While significant defence delays were attributed to both applicants, the Crown failed to adequately explain a 12-month delay in preferring a direct indictment, particularly given its earlier contemplation of this route and its successful use in a similar case during the pandemic.

The court found that even after reasonable adjustments for defence delay and a limited period for the pandemic, the net delay for both applicants exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling for superior courts.

Consequently, the court found an infringement of their s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

Three defendants, Levi Alexander, Vejay Alexander, and Lamar Cyrus, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a planned robbery of a modified starter's pistol resulted in the unintentional shooting death of Alex Perlmutter.

Lamar Cyrus also pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm.

The court accepted joint sentencing recommendations, emphasizing the egregious nature of the offence, the defendants' disregard for court orders (firearms prohibitions, probation conditions), and their serious criminal records.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas (though late) and the harshness of pre-sentencing custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The victim's family provided impact statements detailing their profound loss.

Sentencing decision following jury convictions for human trafficking, material benefit, procuring, advertising sexual services, child pornography offences, and sexual assault arising from the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable young complainant.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also weighing harsh pretrial custody conditions, lengthy lockdowns, pandemic conditions, house-arrest bail, remorse, rehabilitation prospects, and possible deportation as mitigating factors.

Applying the principles governing credit for presentence custody and harsh conditions of confinement, the court reduced the fit global sentence from nine years to eight years.

After 36 months' credit, the respondent was required to serve a further five years, with ancillary DNA, weapons, no-contact, and SOIRA orders.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a fatal shooting in a parking lot outside a nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness with a criminal lifestyle and a history as a police informant, as well as circumstantial evidence of post-offence conduct.

The court found the key eyewitness's testimony to be highly unreliable due to numerous internal and external inconsistencies, and concluded that the accused's post-offence conduct did not support an inference of guilt.

Applying the W.(D) test, the court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused, Jason Bartley, charged with firearms offences, sought to introduce evidence regarding two confidential informants who received benefits contingent on arrests or discovery of illegal items.

The Crown objected on grounds of lack of notice, "innocence at stake" requirements, and lack of "air of reality" to the third-party suspect defence.

The court dismissed the Crown's objections, finding that the evidence was logically relevant to the underlying facts of the offence and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its minimal prejudicial effect.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in a drive-by shooting, sought to limit the proposed testimony of the lead police investigator regarding video surveillance.

The Crown intended to have the officer testify that he identified the suspect vehicle following the victims' vehicle on the video.

Applying the principles from Walizadah, the court ruled that the officer could not testify that the vehicles on the video were similar or consistent with the vehicles involved in the shooting.

The officer was permitted only to place the videos in context regarding time and location and direct the jury's attention to specific times and vehicles, leaving the ultimate finding of fact to the jury.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown applied to admit a photograph of the deceased victim in the vehicle.

The defence objected on the basis that the photograph was inflammatory and lacked probative value.

The court ruled the photograph was of little to no probative value and excluded it, instead permitting the Crown to use leading questions to establish the non-contentious facts regarding the victim's position and gunshot wounds.

During a multi-accused trial for second-degree murder, counsel for one of the co-accused suggested in his closing address that a witness had 'let the truth slip out' in a prior police statement when she mentioned seeing another co-accused with a knife.

The other co-accused brought an application for a mistrial, arguing the address was highly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the closing address did not compromise trial fairness and that any potential prejudice could be cured by a strong limiting instruction to the jury regarding the permissible use of prior inconsistent statements.

The accused were charged with second-degree murder.

Prior to jury selection, two of the accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence of a street encounter with police the day after the homicide, arguing their rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the accused were psychologically detained when four officers approached them, separated them, and questioned them without advising them of their right to counsel.

The court held that the officers' failure to properly record the encounter and their attempts to minimize it as a 'social call' exacerbated the breach.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the court also noted the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements due to the lack of a reliable record.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.