Kevin Kim

Karson Benjamin, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences including trafficking 27 firearms, 12 overcapacity magazines, 2 selector switches, over half a kilogram of fentanyl, and cocaine.

He was also found with a loaded handgun and proceeds of crime upon arrest.

The Crown sought a 15-year global sentence, while the defence argued for less than 10 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of drugs and firearms, the combination of guns and drugs, and Benjamin's integral role, attenuated by his intellectual limitations.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of criminal record, difficult background, early guilty pleas, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Applying principles of proportionality, parity, deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public, rehabilitation, and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years, with specific counts running concurrently or consecutively, and credited 1458 days for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, Tyrone Jackson, sought a bail review under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, challenging a prior detention order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a new, stronger surety plan, allowing for a de novo bail application.

Despite the serious nature of the charges (firearm possession) and the applicant's criminal record, the court was persuaded that the proposed release plan, including 24/7 supervision by a strong primary surety and GPS monitoring, mitigated the risks on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted the bail application, ordering release on a recognizance with two sureties and strict conditions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The court found the trial judge erred in applying the Villaroman analysis for circumstantial evidence by failing to consider plausible innocent explanations, such as inclement weather and the appellant's accent.

The court also found issues with the trial judge's s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding a "hold off" breach of the right to counsel, making it difficult to understand the conclusions on the first two prongs of the Grant test.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered for both charges.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for stabbing his best friend 12 times in an unprovoked attack fueled by jealousy over a former domestic partner.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission of 13 years of parole ineligibility.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it within the appropriate range of 11-15 years, and sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 13 years, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and no-contact orders.

N.M., a young person, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his foster father.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing N.M. had sufficient maturity and that a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court considered N.M.'s disadvantaged background, emotional development issues, and the cumulative pressures he faced, including racism and family dysfunction.

The judge found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and that a youth sentence could hold N.M. accountable.

N.M. was sentenced to a youth sentence of seven years, comprising three-and-a-half years in custody and three-and-a-half years under conditional supervision, with no credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown brought an application to admit several ante mortem statements made by the deceased prior to his alleged murder by the accused.

The statements included a Facebook post, comments to a friend about the accused's drinking, text messages and a phone call to another friend, and utterances made during an altercation shortly before the death.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, assessing necessity and threshold reliability.

The court admitted the text messages and certain utterances made during the altercation, but excluded the Facebook post, the phone call, and a comment about the accused's medication due to lack of reliability, lack of necessity, and high prejudicial effect.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of prior extrinsic misconduct by the accused against his former girlfriend in a trial for second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to motive, animus, identity, and intent, showing the accused's jealousy after the deceased intervened in a dispute.

The court applied the Handy framework and ruled that the probative value of the prior assaults and threats outweighed their prejudicial effect, though graphic details of one assault were excluded to prevent impermissible propensity reasoning.

The application was partially granted.

The Crown brought an application to admit three statements made by the accused to police and to admit blood-stained clothes seized without a warrant.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, argued his Charter rights were violated and the statements were involuntary.

The court found the first two statements were made when the accused was considered a witness, not a suspect, and were voluntary.

The video statement was also found voluntary, with no threats, inducements, or Charter breaches.

The warrantless seizure of the clothes was deemed reasonable due to exigent circumstances, as the clothes could have been lost or destroyed.

The statements and clothes were ruled admissible.

This decision addresses the admissibility of antemortem statements made by the deceased, C.C., in a first-degree murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce these statements under various hearsay exceptions, including present intention, physical condition, narrative, and the principled exception.

The court ruled on the admissibility of specific statements made to different witnesses, admitting those that demonstrated present intention, physical condition, or narrative, as well as those admissible under the principled exception or as circumstantial evidence.

Statements tendered to prove a fact contrary to their content were deemed inadmissible.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped police statement of a deceased witness at the accused's trial for first degree murder under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statement met the necessity requirement but failed to establish threshold reliability, as it lacked procedural safeguards and substantive reliability due to inconsistencies and the witness's intoxication.

The statement was ruled inadmissible under the principled exception, though specific portions were admitted as pure narrative to provide context to the jury.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of six months' imprisonment and three years' probation imposed on the respondent for the sexual assault of a nine-year-old child.

The trial judge had prioritized the respondent's health issues, specifically his reliance on a prosthetic leg, over principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge overemphasized the health issues without evidence that incarceration would cause undue hardship.

The sentence was varied to six months of actual imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation.

Four young men were charged with sexual assault and group sexual assault following an incident in which a highly intoxicated eighteen-year-old woman was driven in a car and engaged in sexual contact with three of the four defendants.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The defendants argued the sexual contact was consensual.

The court acquitted all defendants, finding that while the Crown's evidence was more compelling than the defence evidence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, that she did not subjectively consent, or that the defendants did not honestly believe in consent.

The judgment emphasizes the high burden of proof in criminal trials and the particular challenges in sexual assault cases involving intoxicated parties.

The defendants were charged with six counts each under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for failure to provide necessary animal care, adequate medical attention, food and water, and permitting animals to be in distress.

Before trial, the defence brought a motion to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that two search warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the first warrant unlawful due to deficiencies in the Information to Obtain, including an inadequate anonymous tip, lack of informant credibility assessment, and insufficient corroborative investigation.

However, the court found the second warrant lawful.

Applying the Grant test, the court admitted all evidence from both warrants, finding that exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system in a case involving serious animal welfare concerns.