drug addiction

The defendant, Jacob Martin Norn, was sentenced for manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl after supplying the drug to a friend who subsequently died.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the dangerous nature of fentanyl, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence and alleged Charter breaches, the court imposed a custodial sentence, emphasizing the defendant's continued drug use post-conviction and the societal impact of fentanyl trafficking.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection matter concerning E.P., seeking a final custody order for the mother, N.P., with sole decision-making authority, and supervised access for the father, E.P., at a supervised access center.

The mother consented to the Society's request, while the father sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access, and the paternal grandmother sought to supervise the father's access.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody to the mother and supervised access for the father at a supervised access facility, citing the father's extensive criminal history, periods of incarceration, and the need for a neutral third party to supervise given the high conflict between the parents.

The accused, Donovan McEwan, was charged with five offences: sexual assault, communicate with a person under 18 to facilitate an offence, obtain the sexual services of a person under 18, procuring, and possession of child pornography.

A sixth charge, forcible confinement, was withdrawn.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible despite inconsistencies, attributing them to drug addiction and trauma.

The court found a power imbalance due to the complainant's drug dependency on the accused, negating consent for sexual acts.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, internet luring, obtaining sexual services of a person under 18, and possession of child pornography.

He was acquitted of procuring due to insufficient evidence that he caused or induced the complainant to offer sexual services for another.

The offender, Zeishan Gill, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved fleeting possession of a firearm belonging to another individual during a police raid.

Despite a prior firearm conviction from 2013, the court considered significant mitigating factors, including the offender's guilty plea, demonstrated remorse, compliance with stringent bail conditions for over two years, and successful engagement in drug addiction rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day, while the defence proposed the same length of sentence to be served as a conditional sentence in the community.

The court accepted the defence's position, imposing a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence with strict terms (house arrest for the first half, curfew for the second half), followed by two years of probation, a lifetime weapon prohibition order under s. 109, and a DNA order.

The defendant, Ganon Nathan, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The court reviewed the legal tests for directed verdicts and the essential elements of the offences, particularly concerning vitiated consent due to abuse of a position of power (sexual assault) and the existence of an exploitative relationship (sexual exploitation).

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements for both charges, including evidence of a power imbalance and an exploitative relationship, and dismissed the application for directed verdicts.

This is a sentencing decision for Zlalame Alemu, who was found guilty of multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, residential break and enter, mischief, and threatening a peace officer.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked attacks, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, including prior convictions for similar offences.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expression of remorse and his difficult life experiences, including systemic anti-Black racism and mental health issues, as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report and an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court applied principles from R. v. Morris regarding anti-Black racism and R. v. Hills regarding conditions of incarceration.

While acknowledging the impact of systemic racism, the court found it did not significantly reduce moral culpability for these specific violent offences given the accused's recidivism and lack of engagement with past rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 30 months, which, after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and substantial mitigation for incarceration conditions, resulted in one further day in custody, followed by a three-year probation order.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

A Charter motion challenging the search incident to arrest was abandoned.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime due to reasonable doubt, but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of heroin.

The accused was also found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon.

The court considered circumstantial evidence and the accused's testimony as a functioning addict.

The appellant, Krzysztof Harasiuk, appealed a 24-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to 10 offences, arguing the sentencing judge erred in rejecting a joint submission for "time served." The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to "time served." The Court found that the sentencing judge improperly applied a fitness test rather than the stringent "administration of justice into disrepute" standard required for departing from joint submissions.

It emphasized the importance of joint submissions for judicial efficiency and certainty, concluding that the proposed sentence, which amounted to 14 months with credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest, would not have brought the administration of justice into disrepute, especially considering the resource savings from the omnibus plea.

Ignace Kayiranga was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter following a judge and jury trial.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a custodial sentence of 9.5 years, accounting for pre-trial custody.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors included the victim's death, the brutality of the unprovoked attack, the offender's failure to assist, and a significant criminal record including a prior aggravated assault by stabbing.

Mitigating factors included the offender's complex trauma from the Rwandan genocide, his sincere remorse, and harsh conditions of pre-trial confinement.

The court recommended substance abuse and trauma counselling during incarceration.

The offender, Jesse Egan, was sentenced for possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking (110.64 grams).

The Crown sought 6-8 years imprisonment, classifying him as a mid-level trafficker, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the pernicious nature of fentanyl and the national opioid crisis.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years house arrest followed by three years probation, highlighting the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including overcoming addiction, starting a business, and supporting his young family, and arguing his addiction stemmed from a prior injury.

The court found a conditional sentence unfit given the quantity and danger of fentanyl, and the offender's prior criminal record.

While acknowledging the offender's commendable rehabilitation and applying credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions (Downes and Duncan credit), the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of five years, reduced to four years and ten months after credit.

This case concerns a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a final custody order for the child, LN, to the father and stepmother, with supervised access for the mother.

The mother sought custody of the child for herself.

The court found a continuing need for a protection order due to the mother's untreated ketamine addiction, her inability to recognize and meet the child's needs, and her volatile behavior during visits.

The court determined that placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother was in the child's best interests, as the child had thrived in their consistent and structured care.

The mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father and stepmother were granted full control over the child's documents and travel.

The offender, Donta Easterbrook, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after an unprovoked stabbing in a subway station.

The victim sustained a neck wound but recovered physically, though experiencing emotional trauma.

The offender, 23, had a history of violent convictions, drug addiction, and mental health issues, with inconsistent engagement in treatment and expressed mixed remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, particularly given the public nature of the attack.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months additional custody (totaling approximately 18 months including pre-trial credit), followed by a three-year probation order, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Giuseppe Agostino pleaded guilty to 10 charges across four informations, including multiple counts of break and enter, theft, fraud, mischief, and failure to comply with bail and probation orders.

He was released on bail with the understanding he would attend residential drug treatment, but failed to complete the program and committed further offences.

The Crown sought a further 6 months of jail time in addition to 69 days pre-trial custody.

The court considered aggravating factors, primarily the extensive criminal record, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to public safety concerns and the accused's failure to comply with prior orders.

A further custodial period of 90 days was imposed, consecutive to any sentence being served, along with 18 months of probation with specific conditions aimed at addressing his opiate addiction and preventing further offences.

The accused, S.B.S., faced a 13-count indictment including human trafficking, procuring, assault, administering a noxious thing, and receiving material benefit.

The accused admitted to two assault charges (counts 6 and 11) and a related assault charge (count 10).

The Crown invited an acquittal on one charge (count 7).

The court found the Crown failed to prove human trafficking (counts 1, 8, 12) and procuring (counts 3, 4, 9, 13) beyond a reasonable doubt for all three complainants, largely due to inconsistencies in complainant testimony and lack of sufficient control exercised by the accused over the complainants' movements or sex trade work.

The court also dismissed charges of receiving material benefit related to exploitation and procuring.

The Durham Children’s Aid Society initiated a child protection proceeding concerning A.M., whose parents struggled with drug addiction.

The child had been informally cared for by C.C., a maternal cousin, for several months.

The Society and C.C. brought motions regarding C.C.'s party status and access to the child, while the parents sought reunification.

The court addressed whether C.C. qualified as a statutory party or a party with "care and control" under the Family Law Rules, ultimately deciding to add C.C. as a party under Rule 7(5) due to her significant role in the child's life and her legal interest in seeking access.

The court also determined a temporary access schedule for C.C. with the child, balancing the child's best interests with the parents' reunification efforts, which remained tentative.

The applicant, Michael Kilbride, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including breaking into a private residence and assault.

The court found that the new bail plan, which included house arrest with his mother and cash pledges, did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a de novo hearing or to address the original concerns.

The applicant's extensive criminal record, history of failing to comply with court orders, and the surety's past inability to supervise him led the court to conclude that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention remained strong.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The accused, an Indigenous person, pleaded guilty to multiple criminal offences, including assault causing bodily harm to a police officer, breaches of court orders, and drug/weapon possession.

The court considered Gladue factors, the accused's history of trauma and addiction, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a global sentence of 44 months, applying a 1.5:1 pre-sentence custody credit (35 months) and an additional 3-month mitigation credit for pandemic conditions, resulting in 6 months of new custody.

The court declined to impose a probation order, citing the accused's history of breaches and the Gladue principles.

This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care.

The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.

Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.

The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.

Michael Rodgers, a 24-year-old repeat offender with a severe drug addiction, pleaded guilty to six Criminal Code offences, including two counts of failing to stop for police, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and breaches of probation and release orders.

The offences involved two separate police chases where he drove dangerously while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, disregard for court orders, and public safety risk, balanced against mitigating factors like his guilty plea, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The primary issues were determining a fit global sentence and the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to prison lockdowns and COVID-19 quarantining.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, less 286 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by a one-year probation order and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the Canadian prison needle exchange program (PNEP), specifically its "threat risk assessment" (TRA) feature, arguing it violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying effective access to essential health care.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature due to the ongoing PNEP rollout and evolving design.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish that professionally accepted standards required a health services-centered model without security staff involvement, or that the PNEP/TRA model breached Charter rights by being arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate, or by discriminating on enumerated grounds.