Ken Polley

The two accused were charged with multiple firearm offences, including shooting a pedestrian in a nightclub parking lot following a brief physical altercation.

The Crown alleged the passenger shot the pedestrian, while the defence argued the pedestrian brought his own gun in a satchel, which discharged during the struggle.

The court found the driver's testimony credible and consistent with the physical evidence and video footage.

The court concluded there was a reasonable doubt as to who brought the gun and fired the shot, resulting in acquittals for both accused on all counts.

R.D., a 16-year-old, pleaded guilty to 10 counts related to three jewellery store robberies and one attempted robbery.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under Section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would not sufficiently hold R.D. accountable.

The defence sought the maximum youth sentence of three years.

The court found that R.D. demonstrated sufficient maturity at the time of the offences, which were well-planned and violent, and that a youth sentence would not be sufficient for accountability.

R.D. was sentenced as an adult to a global term of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm, failing to stop at the scene of an accident knowing bodily harm was caused, driving while disqualified, and possession of a counterfeit mark.

The offences arose from a motor vehicle accident on April 12, 2017, at the intersection of Dundas Street West and McQuay Boulevard in Whitby, Ontario, where the accused drove at excessive speeds through city streets during lunch hour, ran a red light, and struck another vehicle, causing serious injuries to the driver.

The accused had an extensive criminal record spanning 20 years with 51 convictions, including numerous driving-related offences and breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years in the penitentiary, with sentences for each offence imposed consecutively, less pre-trial custody credit and enhanced credit for assault in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and uttering death threats against his common law partner.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's Aboriginal background, systemic disadvantages, and significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community under electronic supervision, followed by two years' probation.

The decision extensively applied Gladue and Ipeelee principles, recognizing the accused's intergenerational trauma, addiction issues, and genuine rehabilitation efforts while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to domestic violence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached by the conduct of the arresting officers, such that all statements and breath samples should be excluded.

The defence ultimately conceded the 10(a) issue and proceeded only on the 10(b) claim, arguing that the officers failed to account for the accused's language difficulties when explaining his right to counsel.

The court found that the officers took appropriate steps to ensure the accused understood his rights, including arranging for a Farsi-speaking officer to translate, and that the accused was afforded a meaningful exercise of his right to counsel.

The Charter application was dismissed and the breath samples were admitted as evidence.

A conviction was entered.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of human trafficking, procuring for prostitution, and related offences against two accused.

The court applied the test from Arcuri to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused to trial.

The judge found sufficient evidence on multiple counts relating to the exploitation of vulnerable women in the sex trade, including evidence of control, direction, and influence over complainants' movements and earnings.

The court committed both accused on various counts while discharging others where insufficient evidence was presented.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm following an incident during a non-contact recreational hockey game.

The defendant struck the complainant with her elbow after play had concluded, causing the complainant to fall and break her leg in two places.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting she believed she was about to be attacked.

The court rejected the self-defence claim and the implied consent defence, finding the blow was unprovoked, vicious, and delivered well after the whistle.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.