Leah Gensey

The offender, an Indigenous woman, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm against two different victims, one of whom was an intimate partner and the other a vulnerable Indigenous woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury.

The court balanced the Gladue principles under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which address the systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders, with the requirement under s. 718.04 to prioritize denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for violence against vulnerable Indigenous women.

The court imposed a total sentence of 3 years and 2 months, reduced to 2 years after credit for pre-sentence custody, along with restitution orders.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 offences.

At trial, the defence filed a Charter application alleging a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b), seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown moved to summarily dismiss the application for non-compliance with Rule 3.1(1) of the Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Rules, which requires service at least 30 days before the hearing.

The application was served only 3 days before trial, 27 days late.

The court granted the Crown's motion, holding that the late filing by the defence law firm was not justified and that adjourning the trial was not an appropriate alternative given the impact on court resources and the culture of complacency the Supreme Court directed trial judges to curtail.

In a sexual assault trial subject to a publication ban, the central issue was consent to intercourse following consensual kissing and other sexual activity after a nightclub encounter.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt instruction, focusing on credibility, reliability, intoxication, and whether any boundary against intercourse was clearly communicated.

Video evidence and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence materially undermined the Crown’s proof, while the accused’s evidence remained consistent and raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault by choking, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, and aggravated assault against his former spouse.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's absence from work, DNA on a hat left at the scene, his subsequent arson of the matrimonial home, and his motive regarding family law proceedings.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the prior assaults credible and concluded that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused was the shooter and intended to kill the complainant.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Trevell Greene pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The aggravated assault stemmed from a home invasion robbery in which two individuals were shot multiple times.

The assault causing bodily harm occurred while in custody against another inmate.

The court balanced the sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, taking into account the offender's youth, background of systemic anti-Black racism, and the unduly harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of three years and eight months.

This decision concerns the sentencing of two co-accused, Jason Nahmabin and James Armstrong, who pleaded guilty to being accessories after the fact to murder.

Andrew Chute was murdered in April 2022.

Nahmabin, a drug dealer, was instrumental in bringing the victim to the scene and actively assisted the killers post-murder by retrieving evidence and instructing the co-accused to remain silent and destroy evidence.

Armstrong, a first-time offender with addiction issues, drove the killers from the scene and initially lied to police before cooperating.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and extensively considered Gladue factors for Nahmabin.

Armstrong received a 22-month conditional sentence with house arrest and probation, while Nahmabin received four years of incarceration.

Following a two-week family law trial regarding parenting time, decision-making, and support, the applicant father sought $25,000 in costs, arguing he was largely successful.

The respondent mother sought a no-costs order, arguing success was divided.

The court reviewed the trial outcomes, noting the father achieved increased parenting time and imputed income to the mother, while the mother successfully defended against joint decision-making and week-about parenting.

Finding that success was divided and the mother had a reasonable evidentiary basis to litigate certain issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and breaching a recognizance after a five-year-old child was found severely beaten in a wooded area.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's motive stemming from a deteriorating relationship with the child's mother, his opportunity to commit the crime, pattern bruising on the child matching the accused's shoes, and the child's DNA found under the accused's fingernails.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused committed the assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint decision-making, week-about parenting time, imputation of income to the respondent mother, and termination of spousal support and child support for their 21-year-old daughter.

The court maintained the mother's sole decision-making authority but increased the father's parenting time to three weekends per month to provide more structure for the boys.

The court imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the mother and ordered spousal support to terminate in September 2023.

The court found the 21-year-old daughter remained a child of the marriage due to her ADHD and pursuit of post-secondary education, despite her estrangement from the father.

Section 7 expenses for extracurricular activities were capped at $1,500 per year.

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation imposed on the respondent, a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for choking his domestic partner to the point of unconsciousness.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit and held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined the fit sentence was 60 days' imprisonment less pre-trial custody, plus 12 months' probation.

However, given the appellate delay and the respondent's rehabilitative gains, the court permanently stayed the execution of the custodial sentence.

During a trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault, a key Crown witness refused to be sworn and testify.

The Crown brought an application under section 715(1) of the Criminal Code to admit the witness's testimony from the preliminary inquiry.

The accused opposed the application, arguing he did not have a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary inquiry because he subsequently obtained new impeachment materials.

The court held that the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine and that admitting the prior testimony would not occasion unfairness, provided the newly discovered impeachment materials were also admitted into evidence.

The Crown's application was granted subject to conditions.

Thomas Stephens was found guilty of multiple offences including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, a loaded antique firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

The court considered the Crown's request for a 12-year sentence and the defence's request for 5 years.

The court also addressed the application of Gladue factors, finding insufficient information to link the offender's asserted Indigenous heritage to his moral culpability or appropriate sentencing procedures.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced to 9.5 years with pre-sentence COVID credit, with specific sentences for each offence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for her upcoming trials on charges of impaired driving and multiple domestic assault-related offences.

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked the financial ability to retain counsel, leaving trial fairness as the sole issue.

The court assessed the applicant's education, work history as a business analyst, and self-presentation, concluding she was highly capable of self-representing.

The court also found the charges were not legally or factually complex.

The application for state-funded counsel and the alternative request for the appointment of amicus curiae were dismissed.

On a section 525 bail detention review, the accused sought release by advancing a new surety plan after detention on secondary and tertiary grounds at the original hearing.

The court held that the availability of a surety constituted a material change in circumstances and also found two errors of law in the original decision: misapprehension of the secondary ground as turning solely on substantial likelihood of further offending, and failure to make a sufficient finding on the strength of the Crown's case.

Applying the proper bail principles, the court found the prosecution case to be of medium strength, accepted that the allegations were serious, and concluded that a surety-supervised house arrest plan adequately addressed both secondary and tertiary concerns.

Release was ordered on a recognizance with sureties and strict conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a secondary participant in a fatal shooting.

The Crown sought 16-18 years, while the defence sought 13-14 years.

The court determined the appropriate sentence was 15 years.

The court awarded 10 years of standard pre-sentence credit (1.5 to 1) plus an additional 6 months of enhanced credit due to harsh pre-trial custody conditions, including frequent lockdowns and COVID-19 impacts, leaving 4.5 years to be served.

The appellants, John Disher and Reana Weaver, appealed their sentences for drug trafficking offences involving fentanyl and carfentanil.

Disher was originally sentenced to 12 years and Weaver to 7 years.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider Disher's rehabilitative prospects and by failing to properly apply the principles of restraint and rehabilitation for Weaver, a youthful, first-time Indigenous offender.

The appeals were allowed, and the sentences were reduced to 8 years for Disher and 4 years for Weaver.

This bail review application concerned David Firth, who was detained on multiple criminal charges.

Firth sought release, alleging errors in the initial bail decision and citing material changes in circumstances: the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of a new, suitable surety.

The court found no errors of law in the Justice of the Peace's initial decision but accepted the new evidence as a material change, warranting a de novo bail hearing.

Considering Firth's Aboriginal heritage, the heightened risks of COVID-19 in detention, and the robust release plan proposed with a strong surety, the court determined that Firth had met his reverse onus on all three grounds for release.

Consequently, Firth was ordered released on a recognizance with a surety and strict conditions, including house arrest and counselling.

The accused, a First Nations man charged with second-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the strength of the case, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's poor attitude during his police interview.

The court found the proposed sureties, the accused's uncle and aunt, were adequate to supervise him under strict house arrest conditions.

Applying the Gladue factors and the St. Cloud framework, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions including electronic monitoring via cameras.

The accused was tried on multiple historical sexual offence charges and a voyeurism charge arising from allegations by his stepdaughter over a lengthy period.

The court reviewed the complainant's evidence, the accused's denial, corroborative and contradictory family evidence, and the law governing reasonable doubt, delayed disclosure, and assessment of an accused's testimony.

While some details of the complainant's evidence were compelling, the court found central aspects of the allegations fundamentally incredible when considered against the totality of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

The defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt, and the Crown failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.