systemic racism

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at CAMH, appealed a Review Board disposition continuing his detention despite being designated as alternate level of care.

The appellant proposed a conditional discharge with a Young clause and treatment compliance conditions, or alternatively, living with family due to a lack of community housing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board failed to properly consider the proposed safeguards, did not adequately inquire into family accommodation, and based its risk assessment on speculative concerns and unsupported assumptions.

The Court also overturned its previous decision in Negash regarding the enforceability of hospital readmission under section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The court sentenced Anden Alexander, convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, and flight from a peace officer.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence and the offender, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and canvassed the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less 92 days, to be served in the community, followed by two years' probation, and made ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The applicant, a Black man with a history of foster care abuse and a criminal record, applied for a bail review after being detained on firearms charges.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, placing significant weight on s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code regarding the overrepresentation of Black individuals in the justice system.

The court found that the proposed release plan, involving strict house arrest and two reliable sureties, adequately addressed the risks.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on bail.

During jury selection for a second-degree murder trial, the accused requested the trial judge use the expanded stand-by power under s. 633 of the Criminal Code to ensure at least one Black juror was selected.

The Crown opposed the request.

The trial judge conducted a detailed analysis of the legislative history and conflicting jurisprudence regarding s. 633.

The court concluded that while s. 633 can be used to enhance jury diversity to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, the specific grounds advanced by the defence—that a Black juror could help others understand cultural norms—did not constitute reasonable cause.

The request was denied.

The offender was convicted of two counts of assault and multiple firearm offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm while subject to three prohibition orders.

The court considered the offender's background as a Black Canadian refugee, an eight-year gap in his criminal record, and the harsh conditions of his presentence custody involving 290 days of lockdowns.

The court imposed a total sentence of 40 months, reduced by 28 months of presentence custody credit, leaving 12 months to serve, followed by 12 months of probation.

The offender was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm and a high-capacity magazine.

The firearm was used by a companion in a dangerous public shooting, though the offender was acquitted of attempted murder.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact of systemic racism on his moral blameworthiness.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 2 years and 4 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The Crown appealed a 12-month sentence imposed on a young Black first-time offender for possession of a loaded handgun.

The trial judge had significantly reduced the sentence based on social context evidence of systemic anti-Black racism.

The Court of Appeal held that while social context evidence of anti-Black racism is highly relevant to assessing an offender's moral blameworthiness and rehabilitative prospects, it does not reduce the objective gravity or seriousness of the offence.

The Court also held that the Gladue framework for Indigenous offenders does not apply directly to Black offenders, though it can inform the approach.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied to two years less a day, but permanently stayed due to the passage of time.

The accused, a young Black man, was charged with firearms and drug offences and detained following a bail hearing.

A 90-day detention review was held under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The reviewing judge found the justice of the peace erred by treating an uncertified substance as carfentanil and by failing to consider the accused's membership in a vulnerable population under section 493.2.

Concluding that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, the court ordered the accused's release on strict house arrest conditions with GPS monitoring and substantial sureties.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's background as a Black man raised in an impoverished, racialized community, as well as his significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail, including establishing a successful music business and mentoring disadvantaged youth.

The court found that a conditional sentence of two years less one day would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

The offender, an African Canadian man, was convicted of aggravated assault after sucker-punching and stomping a defenceless victim outside a nightclub.

The court considered the impacts of systemic anti-Black racism and the lack of a formal Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) due to financial constraints.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the severity of the unprovoked attack, the court sentenced the offender to two years in a penitentiary, less three months credit for time spent on strict bail conditions.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 2.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

At sentencing, the offender argued for a conditional sentence, citing systemic racism, a difficult childhood, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including segregation and lockdowns.

The court acknowledged the offender's difficult background and the existence of systemic racism, which justified a sentence slightly below the standard 6-8 year Cunningham range.

However, the court found that the seriousness of the offence required a period of incarceration.

The court imposed a base sentence of 4.5 years, reduced to 3.5 years after applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, a racialized single mother with a history of socio-economic disadvantage, was convicted by a jury of importing 1,390 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drug, and the mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with bail, and systemic racial and socio-economic disadvantages.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate but deviated below the established range of four to six years due to the systemic forces that constrained the accused's choices, sentencing her to three years imprisonment.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a knife, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a recognizance following a violent home invasion.

The court considered the offender's youthful age, mental health issues, and background of systemic racism and abuse as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors of the planned, violent group attack on a vulnerable family.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, granting 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 7 months credit for harsh lockdown conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in 5 years left to serve.

The offenders, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder for the planned and deliberate killing of an innocent 17-year-old victim, whom they mistakenly believed was associated with a group that had previously robbed one of the offenders.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13-17 years, citing systemic anti-Black racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court found the murder to be exceptionally egregious, bordering on first degree murder, and sentenced both offenders to life imprisonment with a 20-year period of parole ineligibility, alongside mandatory weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The Attorney General for Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario (CLA) sought leave to intervene in an upcoming appeal concerning the scope of the actus reus of importing contraband.

The Attorney General sought to argue the impact of the definition on provincial prosecutions of importing firearms and child pornography.

The CLA sought to argue that extending the actus reus beyond the immediate entry point disproportionately impacts racialized communities, relying on social context evidence.

The court granted both applications for leave to intervene, finding the proposed arguments and materials relevant and non-controversial.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his limited participation in the fatal beating of a victim.

The court considered the offender's background, including his exposure to systemic racism as a Black man, but found it to be of limited mitigating significance given the gravity of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of three years and 355 days.

The offender, a 24-year-old first offender, was convicted of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the firearm and drugs, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, lack of record, remorse, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and totality, followed by 24 months of probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime following a police dial-a-dope operation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6 to 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his efforts at rehabilitation, as well as systemic factors contributing to the overincarceration of African Canadians.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, subject to strict conditions including house arrest and drug treatment.

The accused, a Black man charged with the murder of an Asian man, brought a motion to allow multiple-choice questions to be put to prospective jurors during the challenge for cause process, arguing the standard Parks question is insufficient to uncover subconscious racial bias.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing there was no evidentiary basis to depart from the standard question.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the proposed multiple-choice format would be an improvement over the standard Parks question, but directed that jurors be instructed they may provide detailed answers rather than just 'yes' or 'no'.

The offender was convicted of multiple serious drug offences, including importing cocaine and exporting ecstasy, as well as firearms offences.

At sentencing, the defence argued that the offender's difficult youth in a crime-ridden neighbourhood as an African Canadian should mitigate his sentence, analogous to the Gladue principles for Aboriginal offenders.

The court rejected this argument, finding no evidentiary link between his early childhood and his commercial drug enterprise at age 40.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced by 6 years for pre-trial custody.