Gun violence

The defendant, Damion Lewis, applied to exclude evidence (a loaded .357 Magnum revolver and ammunition) obtained during a search incident to arrest, arguing breaches of his section 8 Charter rights due to unlawful scope and execution of the search.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Lewis for theft of mail, making the initial search lawful.

However, the manner of the search was deemed unreasonable because an officer pointed an assault rifle at the handcuffed defendant and threatened to shoot him if he moved.

Despite this serious Charter breach, the court, applying the *Grant* framework, declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The high reliability of the evidence and society's heightened interest in addressing gun violence in Toronto outweighed the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the defendant's Charter interests, especially since the arresting officer acted in good faith and the evidence would have been discovered inevitably.

The accused, Reshane Hayles-Wilson, was convicted of second-degree murder after a jury trial.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which is mandatory life imprisonment with a discretion between 10 and 25 years.

Considering aggravating factors such as the planned nature of the murder, the use of a loaded handgun in a public place, the danger to the public, and the accused's association with a criminal gang, alongside mitigating factors like his young age, lack of prior criminal record, family support, and remorse, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 15 years.

The accused, Daved James Nadon, pleaded guilty to eight counts, including two counts of pointing a firearm, uttering a threat to cause death, forcible confinement, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, attempted murder with a firearm, breach of probation, and possessing a firearm contrary to prohibition.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the use of a prohibited firearm, threats, and the permanent debilitating injuries suffered by the victim, as well as mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, youth, and participation in rehabilitation programs.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve years, while the defence proposed seven to eleven years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 7 months imprisonment after accounting for 2 years and 5 months of pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA sampling, and a non-communication order.

The defendant pleaded guilty to twelve serious charges arising from two shooting incidents in northwest Toronto on April 15-16, 2015.

On April 15, he participated in an attempted murder at Mount Olive Drive.

On April 16, he participated in a more serious attack at Driftwood Court where five people were shot.

The defendant was sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment, with the sentence structured to reflect the gravity of the offences, the number of victims, the use of firearms, and the defendant's breach of probation and prohibition orders.

The court emphasized that the defendant's actions constituted attempted murder with the same moral culpability as murder, and that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing considerations.

A judicial interim release hearing for a 17-year-old charged with aggravated assault, robbery while armed with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, possession of a dangerous weapon, and failing to comply with a peace bond.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found jurisdiction to consider detention as the accused was charged with serious offences.

The court rejected the proposed release plan with two sureties (the accused's father and aunt), finding that the sureties lacked adequate knowledge of the accused's criminal history, showed insufficient commitment to supervision, and that no conditions could adequately protect the public.

The court ordered the accused detained in custody pending trial.

The accused sought judicial interim release following his arrest on serious firearms-related charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm for committing an offence, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The Crown opposed release.

The court found that while the Crown's case had some evidentiary weaknesses, the surveillance video evidence was strong and clear.

The proposed release plan was found to be inadequate because the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist: one surety pledged significant funds but could not supervise, while the residential surety could supervise but pledged virtually no funds.

The court held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground and ordered detention.