K. Lockhart

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping, extortion, using an imitation firearm, administering a noxious substance, aggravated assault, fraud, and failing to comply with probation.

The victim was held for 12-14 hours, extorted, and tortured with boiling liquid, resulting in severe burns.

The Crown sought 12 years, while the defence sought 7-8 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced from 11 years due to mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns and COVID-19) and restrictive bail conditions.

After applying Summers credit, the remaining sentence was 7 years and 3 months.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, applied to sever their trial from a co-accused who had recently been extradited to Canada and was unready for the scheduled trial.

The applicants had been awaiting trial for nearly 30 months and had caused no delay.

The Crown opposed severance, citing the societal interest in a joint trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicants' right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter outweighed the public interest in a joint trial, especially given the Crown's duty to mitigate delay caused by discrete events like extradition.

The applicant applied for certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial on charges including kidnapping and extortion, arguing there was no evidence identifying him as the perpetrator.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically the use of the applicant's details and file photograph during a foreign currency transaction with the victim's bank card.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the teller's standard practice of verifying identity against the file photograph provided sufficient evidence of identity to meet the threshold for committal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and refusing to provide a breath sample.

At trial, the appellant was self-represented.

The appeal court found that the trial judge failed to explain the presumption of care or control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which compromised the fairness of the trial on that charge as the appellant could not make an informed decision about calling evidence.

The appeal was allowed in part, with a new trial ordered for the care or control charge, while the conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample was upheld.

The accused was charged with the first degree murder of his father, who died from a gunshot wound to the eye while sleeping.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's purchase of the murder weapon, his presence near the scene at the time of death, and his fabrication of a false alibi.

The court rejected the defence theory of suicide, finding that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence led to the inescapable conclusion that the accused planned and deliberated the intentional killing of his father.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

Following convictions for first degree murder committed when the offenders were young persons, the Crown applied for adult sentences under s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances and criminal histories of the young persons, and broader societal interests including accountability and public protection.

The murder was a planned execution-style killing involving coordinated roles by each offender and subsequent efforts to conceal involvement.

Although two offenders were eligible for Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision orders, the court concluded that youth sentences would not provide sufficient accountability or protection of the public.

Adult sentences were therefore imposed on all three young persons.

Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.

The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.

The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences arising from possession of a loaded prohibited semi‑automatic handgun and obstruction of justice.

The court considered the appropriate sentencing range in light of mandatory minimum penalties for prohibited firearm possession and the heightened danger posed by carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.

Although the accused was a young first‑time offender with strong rehabilitative prospects and significant community support, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the serious public safety risk.

The court also considered credit for pre‑trial custody and partial credit for strict house arrest bail conditions as mitigating factors.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and limited credit for bail conditions.