Katherine Corrick

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and thereby causing the death of another person.

The collision occurred on April 18, 2023, when the offender, driving at over 110 km/h in a 50 km/h zone with an expired driver's licence and a blood alcohol level of 210-214 mg/100ml, struck a vehicle from behind, fatally injuring the victim.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence, an eight-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, balancing the serious aggravating circumstances against the offender's previously unblemished character and strong rehabilitative potential.

The court sentenced Hugo Munoz to 14 years in prison for the manslaughter of his intimate partner, Cindy Coffey, after he pleaded guilty partway through his trial.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, Mr. Munoz’s mental health history, and the joint sentencing submission.

The court accepted the joint position, emphasizing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the mitigating factors of Mr. Munoz’s guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental illness.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order with specified individuals.

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 criminal trial concerned a charge of manslaughter against Ahmed Rafin following the fatal stabbing of Maahir Dosani during a schoolyard swarming incident.

The Crown argued unlawful act manslaughter, positing that Rafin either intentionally stabbed his attackers (with Dosani being an incidental victim) or committed offenses of weapon possession and threatening.

The defence contended that Rafin acted in self-defence and lacked the requisite intent.

The court found Rafin to be a credible witness, accepting his testimony that he displayed a knife to deter an angry, armed, and numerically superior crowd while attempting to retreat.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafin committed an unlawful act causing Dosani's death, leading to an acquittal.

The offender, Joshua Johnson, was found guilty of manslaughter after being indicted for second-degree murder.

The court conducted a fact-finding exercise to determine the basis of the jury's verdict, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was the principal offender who fatally shot the victim, Daniel Boima, during a planned robbery.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors such as the planned robbery, use of a firearm, the victim being unarmed, the shooting in a residential area, and the offender's attempts to cover up the crime.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, strong family support, and particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 4 years to serve, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

Patrick Williams pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of impaired driving.

The court considered the serious nature of the uncommitted robberies (including planned home invasions), the offender's related criminal record, and the impaired driving incident as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the pandemic, and a disadvantaged background marked by anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought a three-year prison sentence, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of 30 months imprisonment, but due to pre-sentence custody credit, the effective sentence was one day in prison (time served).

The defendant, Tal Amdurski, brought a second s. 11(b) application to stay proceedings based on post-verdict delay, arguing that the seven months and ten days between verdict and anticipated sentencing violated the five-month ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, clarifying that the Jordan ceilings do not apply post-verdict and that time attributable to post-verdict motions unrelated to sentencing, such as the lost evidence application in this case, is to be considered separately.

After deducting the time for the lost evidence application, the remaining post-verdict delay was found not to be unreasonable.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained by police during a murder investigation, alleging breaches of various Charter rights, including those related to search and seizure and rights upon detention.

The court analyzed the validity of production orders for banking records, warrantless review of surveillance video, the lawfulness of detention and seizure of electronic devices, and the validity and execution of a search warrant for cellphones.

The decision outlines specific findings on each alleged breach, determining some police actions were lawful while others violated the accused's Charter rights.

Vilroy Edwards pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in a firearm and careless use of a firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of the sawed-off semi-automatic rifle, the accused's intricate involvement in arranging the sale and advising on its use, and the discharge of the firearm in a residential area.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, young age at the time of the offence, guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and successful compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court also considered his difficult upbringing and the principle of restraint for young Black offenders.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought sixteen months.

The court imposed a total sentence of 912 days (approximately 2.5 years) for firearms trafficking and 18 months concurrent for careless use, after crediting 338 days for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The applicant, previously found guilty of eight offences including human trafficking and sexual assault involving a 13-year-old complainant, sought a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter.

The application alleged a breach of section 7 Charter rights due to the police's loss of relevant cellphone evidence from the complainant.

The court found that the police's failure to properly label, bag, tag, or securely store a USB drive containing the downloaded cellphone contents constituted unacceptable negligence, leading to a breach of the applicant's section 7 rights.

However, the court determined that the loss was due to human error and inadvertence, not intentional wrongdoing or abuse of process.

Furthermore, the court found that the lost evidence did not cause actual prejudice to the applicant's right to make full answer and defence, as other evidence was available to him.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as it did not meet the high threshold of being one of the "clearest of cases."

The accused, Tal Amdurski, was charged with multiple sexual services, sexual assault, and human trafficking offenses involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The central issue for several charges was the accused's mistaken belief in the complainant's age and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain it.

For human trafficking, the court also considered the elements of conduct and purpose, specifically whether the accused exploited the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference, material benefit from sexual services of a person under 18, obtaining sexual services for consideration of a person under 18, and procuring.

He was found not guilty of the primary human trafficking charge and material benefit from human trafficking, but guilty of the included offenses of trafficking in persons and material benefit from trafficking in persons, as the Crown failed to prove knowledge or willful blindness regarding the complainant's age for the higher charges.

The defendants, Tal Amdurski and Thomas Graff, jointly charged with sexual services, sexual assault, and human trafficking, brought s. 11(b) Charter applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating net delay and considering defence delay and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found 8 months and 19 days of defence delay attributable to Amdurski, but not to Graff due to his objections and the Crown's concession.

After accounting for 14 months and 4 days of exceptional circumstances (primarily COVID-related), Amdurski's net delay was 25 months and 22 days (below the 30-month ceiling), while Graff's net delay was 31 months and 5 days (exceeding the ceiling).

The court dismissed Amdurski's application and granted Graff's, staying the charges against him.

The accused, Christopher Janisse, faced an eight-count indictment for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded on a written statement of facts.

Janisse conceded guilt on two counts of possession of cocaine for trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found him not guilty of two counts of trafficking cocaine, determining that the circumstantial evidence, while suspicious, did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found Janisse guilty of a third trafficking count and two counts of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for trafficking, concluding that the totality of circumstantial evidence established his knowledge and control of a drug stash house and the large quantities of drugs found.

The final judgment was guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and not guilty on counts 4 and 5.

The offender, Mageed Bedawi Tago, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, careless use of a firearm, and breach of a release order.

The Crown sought a sentence of 22 months imprisonment, while the defence sought 15 months, both accounting for mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating circumstances, including the public nature of the offence, flight from police, and breach of bail, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, rehabilitative prospects, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19.

The court determined a fit sentence of 22 months imprisonment, with 7 months credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 15 months to serve.

Ancillary orders included a two-year probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA sample order.

Marcus Cumsille was found guilty of offering to transfer a firearm.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including the impact of anti-Black racism and trial delay.

Despite the Crown seeking a three-year prison sentence and the defence seeking a suspended sentence, the court imposed a 17-month sentence, reduced to a 75-day conditional sentence after credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The decision emphasized balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and considered the practical realities of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Crown to provide electronic disclosure in a searchable and indexed format, arguing that the current disclosure was not meaningful or reasonably accessible, thereby compromising his right to make full answer and defence.

The disclosure, comprising over 300,000 pages, was largely in unsearchable PDF format and poorly organized.

The court found that the Crown had failed to provide meaningful disclosure, violating the applicant's Charter rights.

While declining to order re-disclosure of previously provided documents, the court mandated that all future PDF documents, both type-written and hand-written, must be disclosed in a machine-readable format to ensure reasonable accessibility.

A.A. was found guilty after trial of numerous offences against his intimate partner, Y.L., including arson endangering life and property, aggravated assault, mischief, uttering a death threat, and voyeurism, along with subsequent breaches of court orders and criminal harassment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the pattern of abuse, the profound impact on the victims, lack of insight, and planned nature of the offences, as well as mitigating factors including no prior criminal record and personal tragedies.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of A.A. contracting COVID-19 in pre-sentence custody and the harsh conditions of detention.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, resulting in a further 34 months to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA sample, weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition were also made.

The accused, Tyler Carter, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two 14-year-old complainants.

A joint submission for a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment followed by three years probation was presented.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainants' age and the multiple acts of sexual interference, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youthfulness at the time of the offence, lack of prior criminal record for these types of offences, and motivation for treatment for complex mental health challenges.

The defence sought additional credit for pre-sentence custody due to COVID-19 risks in prison, which the court denied, finding the joint submission already lenient and further reduction disproportionate.

The court accepted the joint submission and imposed the recommended sentence, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, and communication/proximity prohibitions.

The applicant, Orville Palmer, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and a facial invalidity in the warrant's address.

The court conducted a "step six" assessment of the unredacted ITO, applying the Debot criteria, and found that the confidential informant's tip was compelling and sufficiently corroborated, establishing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

However, the court conceded that the warrant was facially invalid due to a typographical error in the address (Street instead of Avenue), constituting a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework for s. 24(2) Charter exclusion, the court balanced the seriousness of the breach (inadvertent error, good faith police conduct), the high impact on the applicant's privacy interests in his home, and society's interest in the adjudication of serious drug trafficking charges with highly reliable evidence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application to exclude.