Laurence Cohen

The appellant, D.R., sought release pending appeal from convictions for three counts of sexual assault, uttering a death threat, assault, and assault with a weapon.

The primary grounds of appeal concerned the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the appellant and the complainant.

The court reviewed the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility and accepting the complainant's, finding that the trial judge had engaged in specific analysis of the sexual assault counts and properly considered the complainant's continued relationship with the appellant.

The court concluded that the appellant's credibility-based grounds of appeal did not meet the "not frivolous" threshold required for release pending appeal.

The defendant, Daniel Reza, was convicted of six offences including assault, assault with a weapon, multiple sexual assaults (some involving penetration while the victim was asleep or incapacitated by marijuana), and threatening to kill the victim's father.

The offences occurred within a domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the domestic context, repeated manipulation, the victim's vulnerability (asleep), use of an object, and lasting impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and mental health/addiction issues.

The Crown sought a six-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed two years.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 4.5 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued ancillary orders including a no-contact order, DNA order, SOIRA order, and s. 109 order.

The defendants were convicted of multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise, arising from a series of ATM robberies.

The defendants brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory consecutive minimum sentences under s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding it was bound by appellate authority and that the sentences were not grossly disproportionate for the offenders or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

The court also rejected a request to artificially allocate the sentences to avoid collateral immigration consequences for one of the defendants.

Both defendants were sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of robbery, attempted robbery, conspiracy, and weapons offences related to a series of ATM robberies in Toronto.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence, including distinctive clothing worn by the perpetrators, to link the defendants to the earlier robberies after they were arrested during an attempted ATM robbery.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess the defendants' testimony and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the defendants' explanations, found the circumstantial evidence of identity compelling, and convicted both defendants on all remaining counts.

During a trial for multiple ATM robberies, the Crown brought an application to admit evidence of each robbery as similar fact evidence on all counts to prove identity.

The Crown argued that the perpetrators shared a specific modus operandi and wore distinctive clothing, including a bleach-stained hoodie and specific combinations of other garments.

The court applied the Handy and Arp frameworks, finding that the cumulative similarities in the manner of the robberies and the unique clothing worn by the perpetrators established a high degree of similarity.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and granted the application.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering threats, and mischief arising from a domestic dispute in a parking lot.

The sole ground of appeal advanced was that the trial judge erred in applying the second branch of the W.D. test for assessing credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave fulsome and detailed reasons for her credibility findings, properly applied all three branches of the W.D. test, and her conclusions were fully supported by the record.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault after attacking a 'good Samaritan' who intervened in a bar fight to help an unconscious victim.

The offender kicked the victim to the ground and continued to assault him while he was in a fetal position, causing serious injuries including a torn ACL and fractured foot bones.

The Crown sought 18-24 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

The court sentenced the first-time offender to 9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years of probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's remorse, ADHD diagnosis, and rehabilitative prospects.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition committal hearing relating to fraud charges brought by the United States.

The court reviewed the governing framework under the Extradition Act and the modified application of the Criminal Code bail provisions, emphasizing that flight risk must be assessed with heightened caution in extradition proceedings.

The applicant proposed a substantial surety plan totaling approximately $770,000 and supervision by family members and community members.

The court found that although the secondary ground was addressed and the tertiary ground was not engaged, the primary ground remained a serious concern due to the strength of the extradition case, the potential for lengthy imprisonment in the requesting state, the applicant’s prior fraud conviction in the United States, and his use of aliases.

Given the heightened risk of non‑appearance and the limitations of proposed supervision and electronic monitoring, the court ordered continued detention pending the extradition hearing.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the police stop on private property and argued that his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10 were breached.

The court found that the police officer had authority under both the Highway Traffic Act and common law to conduct a random stop in the parking lot for highway safety purposes.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that he should have been given an opportunity to consult counsel before providing a breath sample, as the "forthwith" requirement in s. 254(2) is a constitutional prerequisite.

The court found the defendant guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample, as he clearly and repeatedly refused to comply with the lawful demand.

During a murder trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a motion asking the court to reconsider a prior evidentiary ruling admitting a hearsay statement from a former girlfriend of an alleged alternate suspect.

The Crown argued new evidence from two witnesses and digital communications demonstrated a strong motive for the declarant to fabricate the statement.

The court held that the new evidence constituted a material change in circumstances permitting reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

However, applying the relaxed threshold reliability standard applicable to defence evidence, the judge concluded the statement retained some reliability and should remain admissible.

The Crown was permitted to call reply evidence from the new witnesses to challenge the credibility and reliability of the hearsay statement.