Kaely Hebert

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to an alleged violation of his s. 11(b) right to a trial without unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 35.5 months, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued the Jordan clock should start at arrest or that pre-arrest delay was an exceptional circumstance.

The court affirmed that the Jordan clock begins when the information is sworn.

It found that police efforts to locate the accused after the information was sworn, particularly after he was known to be in custody, did not meet the standard of due diligence, and thus the pre-arrest delay was not an exceptional circumstance or attributable to defence delay.

After deducting a period of defence delay, the net delay remained 28.75 months, which was presumptively unreasonable and not rebutted by the Crown.

A stay of proceedings was warranted.

Jahlando Sinclair, aged 22, faced charges related to the robbery of two pharmacies.

The central issue was the identification of Sinclair as one of the robbers, specifically the one wearing a grey Roots hoodie.

The Crown relied heavily on high-quality video surveillance, physical resemblance, matching clothing and accessories (shoes, underwear, mask), temporal proximity to other identified robbers, and the location of his arrest near discarded robbery clothing.

The court applied principles of video identification and circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence led to the only reasonable inference of guilt, rejecting the defence's "series of coincidences" argument.

Sinclair was found guilty of robbery, masked with intent, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

A charge of possession of a loaded restricted firearm was reduced to a lesser included offence.

Jameal Johnson was found guilty by a jury of six offences including dangerous driving, various firearm offences (possession, pointing, discharging), and subsequently guilty by judge alone of possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred in Toronto and involved a road rage incident where Johnson rammed the victim's vehicle and fired a handgun.

The court dismissed a pre-trial application to stay proceedings due to lost police interview evidence.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors such as the gravity of the offences, Johnson's lengthy criminal record (55 convictions, including prior firearm offences), and lack of remorse, balanced against mitigating factors including a "terrible" childhood and systemic anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought 13-15 years, while the defence sought 7-11 years.

The court imposed an effective sentence of 10 years imprisonment, comprising 6 years further imprisonment after accounting for 4 years of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearm prohibition, a communication prohibition with the victim, and a three-year driving prohibition.

The accused, David Crowe, was sentenced after being found guilty of criminal harassment, harassing communications, mischief, and multiple breaches of probation and release orders.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years less a day in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence.

The court considered the severe and long-lasting impact on the victim, the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence, the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the harassment, and the repeated breaches of court orders.

Despite these aggravating factors, the court also weighed the accused's significant and genuine efforts at rehabilitation since his arrest, including sobriety and community engagement.

Ultimately, the court imposed concurrent conditional sentence orders of four months for the breaches and sixty days for impersonation, followed by a three-year probation order, noting that the accused had already served the equivalent of an 18-month sentence for the harassment counts through pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A DNA order and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused, Jameal Johnson, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to quash search warrants, stay proceedings, and exclude evidence related to dangerous driving and firearms charges.

The court dismissed the application, upholding the validity of the search warrants and finding no basis to exclude evidence despite a s. 10(b) Charter violation regarding the right to counsel, as the violation was temporally and causally unconnected to the evidence sought to be excluded.

The defendants applied to exclude evidence (a gun and their clothing) obtained following their detention and arrest, alleging breaches of their Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the initial investigative detention lawful, but identified breaches of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to promptly advise of the right to counsel upon detention and for subsequent delays in facilitating access to counsel at the police station.

However, the court found no s. 8 breach regarding the gun seizure, concluding the accused had no privacy expectation, had abandoned the gun, and the search was conducted with valid consent.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court weighed the moderate seriousness of the Charter breaches against their minimal impact on the accused's rights and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious armed robbery cases on their merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and all evidence was found admissible.

David Hercules was found guilty of four counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentencing was delayed due to administrative errors and legal uncertainty regarding conditional sentences, which was resolved by the enactment of Bill C-5.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court denied a discharge, emphasizing the public interest in denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes.

Balancing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the harm caused with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, first-time offender status, and the legislative intent of Bill C-5 to address systemic over-incarceration, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a weapon prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.