Keith Marcus Garrett

Application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) was violated.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 792 days.

After subtracting an explicit waiver period, 582 days remained for consideration, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling of 547 days by 34 days.

The court deducted 33 days as defence delay for failing to schedule a Crown Pre-Trial after having acknowledged sufficient disclosure, and 60 days for unexplained delay in scheduling a trial scheduling conference after the Judicial Pre-Trial.

These deductions brought the net delay to 489 days, below the Jordan ceiling.

The court declined to deduct time for late notice of the stay application as the delay caused no prejudice.

Below the ceiling, the applicant failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings and failed to show the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The appellant, Donald Snoek, appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for a conditional discharge at this time and holding that arguments about alternative conditions should be made at a future hearing before the Board.

The Ontario Court of Justice declined to accept a joint sentencing submission recommending a three-year probation order and credit for 65 days pre-sentence custody for Juanita Chakasim, an Indigenous woman diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

The court found the proposed sentence excessive and potentially harmful to her rehabilitation, emphasizing the need to consider her Indigenous status, cognitive impairments, unstable housing, and mental health challenges.

The judge highlighted the risks of imposing onerous probation conditions on vulnerable offenders, which could lead to breach charges and re-incarceration, perpetuating systemic injustices.

Instead, a suspended sentence with a six-month probation order with minimal reporting requirements was imposed, focusing on restorative justice and community support.

The defendant, Mayuran Sritharan, was charged with assaulting his younger brother with a butcher knife and uttering threats to cut his throat.

The complainant testified that during an argument, the defendant retrieved a butcher knife, held it above his head, pointed it at him, and threatened him in Tamil.

The complainant felt concerned for his safety and called the police.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness.

Applying the legal principles for assault with a weapon and uttering threats, the court determined that the defendant's actions and words, coupled with the complainant's genuine fear, met the actus reus and mens rea for both charges.

The appellant, R.C., appealed convictions for sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, and invitation to sexual touching.

The complainant, who was 15 at the time of trial, testified about incidents that occurred when she was between four and seven years old.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable.

On appeal, R.C. argued that the trial judge improperly assessed the reliability of the complainant's uncorroborated evidence and erred in dealing with recovered memories.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully considered and resolved reliability issues, and did not err or reverse the onus of proof regarding recovered memories.

The trial judge's findings on reliability were entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his sixteen-year global sentence for multiple offences, including home invasion, robbery, sexual assault, and firearms offences.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by first determining a global sentence before articulating individual sentences and that the firearms sentences should have been concurrent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that setting a global sentence first is a valid sentencing method in Ontario and that the consecutive nature of the firearms offences was appropriate given their distinct nature and the clear intent of the sentencing judge.

Mavis Alexander appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and restricted her privileges to escorted hospital and community access.

The ORB had removed prior conditions allowing for less supervised community access and placement on waitlists for community accommodation, citing her high risk of decompensation, disrobing, and exit-seeking behaviour.

Alexander argued the removal was unreasonable and contrary to Kelly (Re), emphasizing the long waitlists for supportive housing and the therapeutic benefit of such provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's decision.

The Court found the Board's assessment that the conditions lacked an "air of reality" was supported by the evidence, distinguishing the case from Kelly (Re) where community living was therapeutically motivated and not "so unrealistic."

The appellant, Oliver Ritchie, appealed his convictions for luring a child under 16 and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a minor, and sought leave to appeal his 16-month sentence.

The convictions stemmed from an online police sting operation where a detective impersonated a 14-year-old girl.

The appellant denied sending the texts, claiming a stranger used his phone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law regarding age presumption, evidence assessment, or the W.(D.) analysis.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and aligned with the Supreme Court's directive in Friesen for increased sentences in child sexual offense cases.

The appellant, Denise Henn, appealed a 12-month custodial sentence for fraud over $45,000.

The Court of Appeal found two errors in principle by the sentencing judge: erroneously treating lack of restitution as an aggravating factor and failing to consider relevant mitigating factors (diagnosed mental health issues and financial distress, not greed, as the cause of the fraud).

The appeal was allowed, and a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest and a standalone restitution order was imposed, followed by three years' probation.

The Court also found a fine in lieu of forfeiture inappropriate.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal of a 23-month reformatory sentence for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the appeal had sufficient merit, particularly regarding the availability of a conditional sentence order for sexual assault under the Criminal Code.

The court noted that while Superior Court decisions had found the relevant Criminal Code provision unconstitutional, the Court of Appeal had not yet definitively addressed the issue, creating a legal quagmire for the applicant.