Break and enter

The accused was charged with nine counts arising from two discrete incidents in May and June 2019 involving his former partner.

The Crown conceded two counts.

The court found the accused guilty of uttering threats (two counts), sexual assault, arson, and break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The court acquitted on assault, break and enter with intent (May incident), uttering threats (June incident), and escape from lawful custody.

The defence of automatism based on substance abuse was rejected, as the court found the accused retained sufficient capacity to form the necessary intent for the offences.

This judgment concerns a breach hearing for Arber Krasniqi's one-year conditional sentence order (CSO).

Krasniqi was found to have breached his curfew condition less than two months into the CSO, having been found outside his residence at 1:45 AM and involved in the theft of a vehicle, while also possessing a "key programmer." The court found the breach to be flagrant and indicative of further criminal offending.

Despite arguments for mitigating factors and electronic monitoring, the court determined that the presumption of reincarceration applied due to the severity of the breach and the offender's poor response to community supervision.

The conditional sentence order was terminated, and the offender was committed to custody for the remaining 255 days of his sentence.

The appellant, Mark Cameron, appealed his conviction for break and enter, firearm offences, and cocaine possession, arguing several Charter violations related to his detention, arrest, and search.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's Charter ruling.

The court upheld the lawfulness of taking keys during investigative detention, the sufficiency of information provided, the reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on cumulative circumstances, the lawfulness of the incidental search, and the justified delay in advising the right to counsel due to officer safety concerns.

The Crown sought to declare the defendant a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant opposed, arguing the criteria for dangerous offender were not met, and sought a long-term offender designation instead.

The court found that while the defendant had committed serious personal injury offences and exhibited a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable." The court designated the defendant a long-term offender under s. 753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, imposing a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (with credit for time served, leaving 113 days remaining) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The appellant, convicted of two counts of break and enter, appealed his 3-year sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by incorrectly applying Gladue principles.

Specifically, the appellant contended the trial judge failed in her duty to fill evidentiary gaps regarding rehabilitation options.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach.

The court held that the trial judge was not obligated to grant further adjournments, as defence counsel had provided significant information about the appellant's Indigenous background, and the judge had inquired about rehabilitation programs, which the appellant declined.

The appellant, Norman Perry, appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting his own, especially given his acquittal on a related break and enter charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were discernable in context, allowed for meaningful appellate review, and that the two verdicts were reconcilable.

The appellant, Bradley Priestap, appealed his convictions for multiple counts of voyeurism, break and enter to commit voyeurism, possession of instruments for break and enter, and prowling.

He abandoned his sentence appeal.

The grounds of appeal were: the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, erred by summarily dismissing an alternate suspect theory, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, no error in limiting evidence on an alternate suspect due to lack of connection, and no demonstration of prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant, Jevane Fuller, appealed his convictions for multiple break and enters, assault, confinement, and robbery, and his total sentence of 15 years.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of a key witness's evidence and the admission of similar act evidence, both cross-count and from prior Toronto robberies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the appeal was allowed only to the extent of removing a victim fine surcharge, with the overall 15-year sentence upheld as fit.

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling on April 18, 2020, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence on April 19, 2020, and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue was the calculation of enhanced presentence custody credit, particularly regarding lockdown conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre and COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

The court imposed an 18-month global sentence with enhanced presentence custody credit totalling 18 months, resulting in immediate release on probation.

The judgment addresses systemic failures in the detention centre's provision of personal protective equipment to vulnerable detainees.

Michael Haughton, charged with numerous break and enter offences and breaches of court orders, sought a bail review based on a material change in circumstances, including delays due to COVID-19 and his asthma.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown's case strong and the proposed surety plan inadequate.

Despite the increased risk of COVID-19 in custody and the applicant's asthma, the court determined that the risk to public safety and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice outweighed these concerns, dismissing the bail review application.

The accused, Kenny Seegobinsingh, applied for a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing.

The application was based on two material changes in circumstances: new proposed sureties and the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both constituted material changes, allowing for a de novo bail hearing.

Considering the new sureties' credible evidence and the amplified risks of COVID-19 in institutional settings, the court determined that the proposed strict house arrest plan would sufficiently reduce the risk of re-offending and would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite the serious nature of the break and enter charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten charges including unlawfully being in a dwelling house, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, possession of stolen property (motor vehicles), occupying motor vehicles without consent, operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and failures to comply with recognizance conditions.

The charges spanned from July 2018 to August 2019.

The Crown sought 14-15 months incarceration while the defence sought 8.5 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine months pre-sentence custody, considering the principle of totality, Lord Coke's principle (that subsequent convictions cannot aggravate sentences for prior offences), and the accused's personal circumstances including functional illiteracy, family history of substance abuse, and depression.

The Crown applied to have Courtney Carter declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour.

Carter pleaded guilty to ten charges including aggravated assault with a meat cleaver, mischief to public property, possession of weapons, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple breaches of probation.

The court found that Carter met all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation, including a serious personal injury offence, a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour demonstrating failure to restrain his conduct, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and intractable violent conduct.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.

The defendant, Steven Manuel Espinola, was charged with break and enter, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault against his former fiancée.

The court acquitted him of break and enter, finding no intent to kidnap upon entry.

However, the court found him guilty of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault, accepting the complainant's testimony over the defendant's, which was deemed unreliable and illogical.

The kidnapping occurred when he drove her against her will, the assault involved a shove during a struggle for her phone, and the unlawful confinement took place at his home where he prevented her from leaving.

The appellant appealed his conviction on eight offences arising from a break and enter of a pharmacy in Sudbury on January 26, 2017, and his sentence of three years' imprisonment less 455 days pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant argued he entered through an open door and should have been convicted of unlawful entry rather than break, enter and theft, and that he was not identified at the scene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence supported the findings of guilt.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to adequately consider as a mitigating factor the serious injuries the appellant sustained while in pre-sentence custody, including four broken ribs, two punctured lungs, and a brain injury.

The Court reduced the remaining sentence to 300 days on count 1 and 300 days on count 2 (concurrent), such that the sentence was fully served, and set aside the mandatory victim fine surcharge.

The accused, Khalife Bartholomew, was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearm-related offences, including break and enter and theft of a firearm, conspiracy, possession of firearms in a vehicle, possession of firearms without a license, possession of firearms obtained by crime, and possession of property obtained by crime.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the involvement of firearms and mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, family ties, and participation as an aider rather than instigator.

The court applied sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation, proportionality, and restraint, ultimately imposing a global sentence of two years less a day, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 18 months in custody, followed by three years of probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defendant, Darryl Ryan Bloomfield, pleaded guilty to break, enter, and theft of a dwelling-house.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the offender's troubled history including substance abuse and a lengthy criminal record, and victim impact.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence followed by two years probation, while the defence requested a suspended sentence with a three-year probation order including a curfew and electronic monitoring.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the serious nature of the offence and the offender's history of non-compliance with community supervision, while also acknowledging mitigating factors like the guilty plea and efforts towards rehabilitation.

A custodial sentence of nine months was imposed, followed by two years of probation with strict conditions, a DNA order, and a victim surcharge.

This ruling addresses disputed facts for sentencing following a jury verdict where Andrew Mitchell was found guilty of break and enter with intent and assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought to include a black eye, hand injury, and concussion as bodily harm for the assault charge, while the defence argued only the black eye.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Ferguson, determined the factual basis for sentencing.

It found that the complainant suffered a black eye, hand injury, and concussion for the assault, and that the break and enter involved some level of violence and/or threats.

Joseph Schmidt pleaded guilty to break and enter with intent and assault causing bodily harm.

The offences involved a home invasion and a violent attack on the victim, Jeremy John Robert Walsh, resulting in serious injuries requiring surgery.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offences and the victim's injuries, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior record, good character, guilty pleas, immediate post-attack actions (taking victim to hospital), compliance with strict bail, and triable issues in the Crown's case.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence, imposing a two-year imprisonment, followed by a three-year probation order with various conditions, including no contact with the victim and weapons prohibitions.

The accused was charged with eight counts including possession of loaded restricted firearms without authorization, possession of firearms without a licence, careless storage of firearms, break and enter at a pharmacy, alteration of vehicle identification numbers, and possession of stolen motor vehicles.

The Crown withdrew charges related to VIN alterations and the co-accused.

The trial proceeded on counts relating to firearm possession, careless storage, break and enter, and possession of stolen vehicles.

The court found the accused guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, and 7 (firearm possession and stolen vehicle possession) but acquitted him of counts 4 and 6 (break and enter and possession of the Durango) due to insufficient evidence of knowledge and physical capability.