Karolina Visic

The accused was convicted of second-degree murder for striking and driving over the victim with his vehicle following a confrontation outside an after-hours bar in Toronto on February 5, 2023.

The Crown had alleged planned and deliberate first-degree murder, but the jury rejected this theory.

The court imposed a life sentence with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years.

The decision addresses the sentencing principles applicable to second-degree murder, the consideration of a sentencing circle request (which was dismissed), aggravating factors including the use of a vehicle as a weapon in a public space, and mitigating factors including the accused's Indigenous background, youth, lack of criminal record, and the jury's unanimous recommendation for the minimum 10-year ineligibility period.

The accused was convicted by jury of sexual assault.

At sentencing, the court found that the victim lost consciousness and lacked capacity to consent to sexual activity, and that the accused was reckless about whether the victim was consenting.

The court imposed a 32-month penitentiary sentence, rejecting both the Crown's request for 3.5 years and the defence's request for a conditional sentence.

The court found highly mitigating factors including the accused's status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse expressed within 24 hours of the offence, meaningful engagement in counselling and rehabilitation, strong pro-social support, and low risk of recidivism.

The court declined to impose a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that the accused had established that such an order would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court sentenced Kane Alexander Underhill for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a violent, unprovoked two-on-one attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including Mr. Underhill’s Indigenous background, substance abuse, harsh pre-sentence custody, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a seven-year sentence, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court sentenced Mwanza Serge Mutombo for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a vicious, unprovoked attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors such as Mutombo’s significant criminal record, the use of a weapon, and the vulnerability of the victim, as well as mitigating factors including his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court reviewed relevant case law and sentencing ranges, ultimately imposing a nine-year sentence, less pretrial custody credit, and making ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Ralph George for possession of two loaded firearms and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on two separate occasions.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, public firearm possession, drug quantities indicating mid-level trafficking, a prior criminal record, and fleeing from police.

Significant mitigating factors were also weighed, such as the offender's difficult upbringing marked by trauma, abuse, systemic discrimination, negative police experiences, and sexual assaults in foster care, as well as Charter breaches during his arrest, his efforts in programming while in custody, positive rehabilitative prospects, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 20 years, while the defence proposed 12-14 years.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, reduced to 10.5 years after credit for pre-sentence custody, finding that a higher sentence would be "crushing" and undermine rehabilitation.

The Crown brought an application to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and uttering a death threat.

The offender had a lengthy history of violent offences, an antisocial personality structure, and a major mental illness.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, as his violent conduct was substantially intractable and he posed a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

Concluding that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought a pre-trial motion for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 48 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by the co-accused's counsel's unavailability, the net delay was approximately 34.38 months, slightly above the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness due to exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the unexpected illness of a key Crown witness and assigned Crown counsel, and the complexity of the joint trial.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and other offences following a knife attack on a woman in her apartment.

The complainant died before trial for unrelated reasons.

The court admitted her 911 call as an excited utterance and portions of her police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and uttering threats, but acquitted him of attempted murder, finding the specific intent to kill was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was also found guilty of assaulting a police officer by spitting on him during booking.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, applied for bail.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that while the secondary ground concerns were substantial, they could be adequately mitigated by a strict release plan involving two sureties, house arrest conditions, and random drug testing.

The court also concluded that detention was not necessary on the tertiary ground.

The application for release was granted.