Kristen Dulysh

The court sentenced Spiro Tsakopoulos for manslaughter after a guilty plea, following the shooting death of Bryson Murle.

The sentencing reasons review the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range for manslaughter with a firearm and imposed a 10-year sentence before credit for pre-sentence custody, with appropriate statutory orders.

The court found Tekele Ogbamichael guilty of sexual assault in four counts and guilty of the lesser included offence of assault on one count, following a series of incidents on public transit in the Greater Toronto Area.

The decision details the evidence of each complainant, the police investigation, and the application of cross-count similar fact evidence to establish identity.

The court found the similarities between the incidents—modus operandi, description, and circumstances—were so striking as to make coincidence highly improbable.

The judge also addressed the frailties of eyewitness identification and the use of circumstantial evidence, ultimately concluding that the Crown had proven identity and the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brittany Johnston-Brazil pleaded guilty to use of an imitation firearm, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and uttering a death threat.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the prolonged, sadistic nature of the assault, the victim's vulnerability, and the offender's primary role in the violence, against mitigating factors such as her youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed a global sentence of six years and six months, comprising five years and six months for aggravated assault, concurrent sentences for unlawful confinement and death threat, and a consecutive one-year sentence for the imitation firearm use.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, uttering a death threat, and use of an imitation firearm.

The offences involved a prolonged, sadistic torture session of a former intimate partner over a perceived debt.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and troubled background.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 6.5 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a cellphone Health App to show the accused was pacing at home shortly after a fatal fire.

The defence opposed, arguing the underlying science was unreliable.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the Health App data was not reliable for forensic purposes in this case, as there was no independent evidence the accused was walking or running with the phone, and the app could register false positives.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased victim, Alan Rutherford, identifying his assailant in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as dying declarations and spontaneous utterances.

The defence challenged their reliability due to inconsistencies among witnesses and a minor factual error by the declarant.

The court found that the statements met the criteria for both traditional hearsay exceptions and the principled approach, concluding that the defence's objections went to the weight of the evidence rather than its threshold admissibility.

The Crown's application to admit the statements was granted.

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, charged with two counts of first-degree murder, to sit at counsel table during trial.

The court outlines twelve principles governing such applications, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and courtroom security.

The court rejects the notion that the defence bears an onus to show exceptional circumstances.

Applying these principles, the court grants the application, permitting the accused to sit at counsel table, subject to being restrained by silent ankle shackles and appropriate security placement.

The accused was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime following a dial-a-dope undercover investigation.

He brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion before offering to buy drugs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused's use and understanding of drug subculture slang during two phone calls with the undercover officer established the requisite reasonable suspicion before the opportunity to commit the offence was provided.

The accused was charged with two separate first-degree murders in Toronto and Brampton.

During a pre-trial motion, the court previously ruled that the accused's confessions to undercover officers were admissible.

In this motion, the court determined how to edit the confession for the Toronto trial to prevent the jury from hearing overly prejudicial evidence about the Brampton homicide.

The court ruled that explicit references to the Brampton shooting must be edited out, but circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the car and gun used in both incidents remained admissible due to its high probative value regarding identity.