Katherine Corrick

The offender pleaded guilty to discharging a restricted firearm with intent to wound and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred during a public altercation outside a shopping mall where the offender fired a handgun at another individual, though no one was struck.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factor of a public shooting near a school against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a total sentence of 6.5 years, reduced by 40.5 months for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The offender pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

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

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including his youth, systemic anti-Black racism, strict compliance with bail conditions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

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 accused, charged with multiple drug trafficking offences, brought an application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that a tracking warrant was improperly issued.

The tracking warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

Applying the Debot framework, the court found the informant's information was compelling, highly credible, and materially corroborated by police surveillance of counter-surveillance techniques.

The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was trafficking drugs and that the tracking warrant was validly issued.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of assault, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and sexual assault causing bodily harm against his wife.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years and 4 months, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the mitigating factors of the offender's lack of a criminal record, employment history, and the collateral immigration consequences.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 3 years imprisonment.

Following a wiretap prosecution involving multiple accused, the court considered conspiracy, firearms trafficking by offer, drug trafficking conspiracy, robbery conspiracy, and criminal organization allegations arising from intercepted jail and street communications.

The court acquitted on the firearm conspiracy counts after finding a reasonable doubt whether one accused merely pretended to agree, but convicted that accused of offering to transfer a firearm because he made a genuine-looking offer perceived as such by the recipient.

A co-accused's guilty plea to conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance was narrowed on the facts to cocaine rather than heroin.

The court rejected the robbery conspiracy and criminal organization allegations, holding the evidence showed loosely connected criminal conduct and friendship networks rather than the structure, continuity, and cohesion required for a criminal organization.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's background as a Black man raised in an impoverished, racialized community, as well as his significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail, including establishing a successful music business and mentoring disadvantaged youth.

The court found that a conditional sentence of two years less one day would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

The two accused brothers were convicted of aggravated assault after brutally attacking a defenceless victim by kicking him in the head multiple times.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought conditional sentences.

The court considered the extreme violence of the attack, the mitigating factors including the offenders' lack of significant criminal records, their employment, and remorse, as well as the collateral immigration consequences for one offender and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison conditions.

The court sentenced both offenders to 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

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.

The applicant, facing multiple charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, and first-degree murder, applied under s. 462.34(4)(c) of the Criminal Code for the release of $459,595 seized by police to pay his legal expenses.

While the Crown conceded the applicant had an exclusive interest in the funds, the court found the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he lacked other financial resources to retain counsel.

The application was dismissed due to a dearth of financial information provided by the applicant.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from a volatile intimate-partner relationship, the court assessed credibility, circumstantial evidence, expert fire investigation evidence, and forensic chemistry evidence concerning an apartment fire, threats, property damage, and a secretly taken nude photograph.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence notwithstanding some inconsistencies and applied the circumstantial evidence framework to determine which inferences were reasonably available.

The Crown failed to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, but proved aggravated assault, two arson counts, one count of mischief, uttering a death threat, and voyeurism.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder and one mischief count because colour of right raised a reasonable doubt as to the cellphone.

The offender, a 20-year-old first-time offender at the time of the offences, was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent following a home invasion.

During the robbery, the victim was shot in the back with a shotgun by a co-accused and suffered grievous injuries.

The Crown sought 9-10 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but considered the offender's youth and the principle of parity with a co-accused who received 8 years.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years concurrent on each count, less 554 days of pre-sentence credit, including enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

Boyd Alexander pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and failing to appear in court.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of cocaine and a lengthy criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea, remorse, community support, and status as an addict trafficker.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence proposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by a conditional sentence with drug treatment.

The court imposed a total sentence of 304 days (10 months) in prison for the drug offence, less 170 days pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a further 134 days of incarceration, followed by a six-month conditional sentence for the failure to appear charge, with conditions focused on drug treatment.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also made.

The accused, Andrew Douglas, was charged with robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life following a home invasion.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on forensic evidence (DNA, gunshot residue on discarded clothing), cell phone records, and the testimony of the getaway driver, Mohamed Taha.

The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that Taha's testimony was unreliable.

The court found Taha's evidence credible due to corroboration by other circumstantial evidence.

The judge concluded that the cumulative effect of all evidence established Douglas's guilt as a co-principal or aider for robbery, and as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm, as these were objectively foreseeable consequences of the common unlawful purpose.

Randi Wasylyk was charged with unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Daniel Green discharged a firearm and then placed the weapon in Wasylyk's satchel shortly before their arrest.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and trial.

The central issues were whether Wasylyk knew about the firearm or was wilfully blind to its presence, and whether she intended to possess it to assist Green in evading police.

The court found the defence's evidence plausible and consistent, raising a reasonable doubt regarding Wasylyk's knowledge and intent to possess the firearm.

Consequently, Wasylyk was found not guilty on all counts.

Randi Wasylyk, charged with firearm offences, applied to exclude a firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 and 9, as the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful based on reasonable grounds.

However, the court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to delayed notification of arrest reasons and unreasonable delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that despite the seriousness of the Charter breaches, the reliable nature of the firearm evidence and society's strong interest in prosecuting firearm offences meant its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the firearm was deemed admissible.

Skot Tennant was found guilty of six counts related to firearm possession and breach of prohibition orders after a trial.

He was found with a .32 calibre handgun and ammunition in a backpack at another person's apartment, while subject to a s. 109 Criminal Code prohibition order.

The Crown sought a 5.5-year sentence, while the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with violent offences, taking a firearm into another's home, and repeated disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors included an eight-year period without criminal involvement, work efforts, strong family support, and no evidence of firearm discharge or threat.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4.5 years, reduced by 99 days for pre-sentence custody and stringent release conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years and 266 days.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture of the firearm, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.