Kathryn Ginn

The accused, Raymond Santos Escutin, brought an application alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) right to counsel due to an arbitrary delay by the police officer in providing rights and caution, exacerbated by the officer's misunderstanding of the "without delay" requirement and eliciting incriminating information during the delay.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the state's conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples.

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

This sentencing decision addresses a young adult offender who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm into a public place and armed robbery.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the dangerous use of a firearm in a public establishment, against significant mitigating factors such as the offender's genuine remorse, positive pre-sentence report, challenging upbringing, and guilty pleas entered despite triable issues.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of two years less one day, comprising twelve months imprisonment followed by a twelve-month less one day conditional sentence order, plus a three-year probation order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The sentence was noted as being at the very low end of the range for such offences, justified by the unique mitigating circumstances.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and unlawful confinement after he and associates bound retail store employees and stole over $135,000 in merchandise.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 30-month gross sentence.

The court granted standard Summers credit and a modest amount of enhanced Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, declining to grant a full 2:1 ratio due to the offender's 21 institutional misconducts.

The net sentence was time served, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant, Cody Moreau, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of Gladue principles.

The court found the Gladue principles inapplicable due to insufficient objective evidence of Indigenous ancestry or connection to an Indigenous community.

The offence involved extreme violence, a two-on-one attack, and stomping on a helpless victim, resulting in severe head injury.

Moreau had a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm and was on probation at the time.

Despite mitigating factors such as a difficult upbringing, substance abuse issues, and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual offences against his two stepdaughters.

The allegations spanned several years and involved both touching and intercourse.

The accused testified and emphatically denied the allegations, providing a detailed and credible account of events.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's exculpatory evidence under the first prong, finding him entirely credible.

The court also found that even if the accused's evidence was not fully accepted, it raised a reasonable doubt under the second prong, and the frailties in the Crown's evidence raised a reasonable doubt under the third prong.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding her small business employer of $45,222.26 over a two-and-a-half-year period.

The accused, who was responsible for accounts receivable and payable, transferred the funds into her own accounts and her child's account across 73 transactions.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the paramountcy of denunciation and general deterrence in breach of trust employee frauds.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months in jail, 36 months of probation, and ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone criminal proceeding, the court admitted each complainant's evidence as similar fact evidence on the other counts arising from allegations of sexual abuse within a household involving three sisters.

Applying the governing similar fact framework, the court found an air of reality to innocent collusion because of family discussions, but concluded on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was not tainted by collusion.

The court held that the circumstances of the allegations disclosed a persuasive degree of connection across counts, particularly the shared family setting, opportunity, relationship of trust, and broadly similar pattern of sexualized conduct.

The probative value of the evidence on actus reus, credibility, and reliability significantly outweighed the low risk of moral or reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing the death of her 11-month-old son, who died from acute fentanyl intoxication after being exposed to the drug in their shared bed.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, sentencing the accused to two years in jail, less pre-trial custody, followed by two years of probation.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse, while also considering the accused's guilty plea, traumatic background, and rehabilitative efforts.

A Toronto Police Service officer pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by destroying or converting evidence to his own use.

During the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary, the officer stole three cannabis-infused chocolate bars that had been overlooked during the search.

He later consumed one of the bars while on duty and armed with a firearm, resulting in severe intoxication.

His impaired state led him to make a false officer-in-need-of-assistance call, which caused responding officers to rush to the scene.

One officer was seriously injured in the response.

The evidence tampering resulted in the withdrawal of criminal charges against seven persons.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite the officer's otherwise exemplary 13-year career, finding that a conviction and conditional sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the rule of law and denounce the egregious breach of public trust.