D. Goodman

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 and money laundering after operating a $29 million Ponzi scheme called Debit Direct.

He sold fake point-of-sale debit terminals to hundreds of investors and transferred the funds to the Dominican Republic.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years in prison, less pre-sentence custody, and ordered $26.9 million in restitution along with a matching fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Crown applied to remove the accused's counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine.

The accused's employer, an unindicted co-conspirator in the same investigation, had previously declined to give a statement to police and referred them to the same lawyer, claiming him as his own counsel.

The court found that a confidential relationship likely existed between the employer and the lawyer, creating a realistic risk of a conflict of interest that could adversely affect trial fairness and the integrity of the justice system.

The application was granted and the lawyer was removed as counsel.

The accused, Michael Toussaint and Felicia Chapman, were tried together on multiple counts of gasoline theft and possession of stolen license plates.

The Crown relied on affidavit evidence from gas station managers and video surveillance showing heavy-set black individuals driving Nissan Altimas with stolen plates stealing gas.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence across counts due to striking similarities in the perpetrators' physical characteristics, clothing, vehicles, and methods.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's possession of identical vehicles and the stolen plates, the court found both accused guilty of almost all charges, concluding there was no reasonable possibility of innocence.

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.