Leah Shafran

The applicant, Michael Turcios, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the scheduled end of trial was 893 days (29 months and 11 days), exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the Crown and police's failure to provide timely and complete disclosure, despite diligent efforts by the defence.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments that the delay was caused by the defence's late review or requests.

Finding no defence-caused delay or exceptional circumstances, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

M.L. was sentenced for multiple intimate partner violence offences, including five counts of assault, one sexual assault, two mischief under $5000, and one uttering threats.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the presence of a child during some assaults, and the breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included M.L.'s lack of prior criminal record, community support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months custody (11 months additional jail after pre-sentence credit) and 24 months probation.

An exemption from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was granted, finding it grossly disproportionate given M.L.'s rehabilitative prospects and low risk of re-offending.

The defendant, Matthew McNair, was charged with refusing a breath sample, failing to comply with a release order, and several Highway Traffic Act offences.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of the breath refusal due to alleged violations of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and an unlawful breath demand.

The court found that the defendant's s. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights were violated due to arbitrary detention, prolonged handcuffing, and delayed/unclear right to counsel cautions.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the evidence of the breath refusal.

Additionally, the breath demand itself was found unlawful due to non-compliance with the "immediacy" requirement of s. 320.27 of the Criminal Code and the absence of an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

However, evidence for the Highway Traffic Act offences and the breach of the release order was admitted as these offences occurred prior to the Charter breaches and the evidence was not "obtained in a manner" that violated the Charter.

The applicants, two hospital security guards, sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial on charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from an incident where a patient died following a physical altercation and restraint by the guards.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the essential elements of the offences.

Upon review, the court concluded there was no evidence establishing the objective foreseeability of non-trivial bodily harm for manslaughter, nor any evidence of wanton or reckless disregard for life for criminal negligence.

The application was granted and the committal orders were quashed.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in the home invasion robbery and murder of the victim.

Wight, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was an active participant in the severe beating, was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

Hoo-Hing, who was found guilty of second degree murder as a secondary party for facilitating entry and assisting in the robbery plan, received a mandatory life sentence with a 13-year period of parole ineligibility.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of $18,800 seized from Hoo-Hing as proceeds of crime.

During deliberations in a lengthy murder trial, the jury sent several notes indicating they had reached unanimous verdicts for two accused and a unanimous verdict on a lesser included offence for the third accused, but were deadlocked on the greater offence for the third accused.

Five majority jurors sent notes attacking the reasoning of the minority jurors, including allegations of racism.

The trial judge declined to conduct an inquiry into the minority jurors' reasoning or declare a mistrial, finding that doing so would violate the common law jury secrecy rule and s. 649 of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the unanimous verdicts reached by the jury.

In a trial for first-degree murder involving three co-accused, the Crown and one co-accused sought to admit text messages and prior convictions of another co-accused to establish a drug dealer-purchaser relationship and a disposition for violence and firearms.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding that its probative value in supporting the co-accused's defence of lack of intent outweighed the prejudicial effect.

The court provided mid-trial and final limiting instructions to the jury regarding the permissible and impermissible uses of the disposition evidence.

The applicant applied to quash his committal to stand trial on drug possession and trafficking charges relating to drugs found in the second bedroom of a short-term rental unit.

He argued there was no evidence he had knowledge or control over those specific drugs.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in concluding there was sufficient circumstantial evidence—including the applicant's access to the unit, drugs on his person, and drug paraphernalia in common areas—to support an inference of joint possession and control.

The offender was found guilty of unlawfully in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The court considered sentencing submissions, including the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order (CSO).

The judge determined that a combination of real jail and a CSO was appropriate, imposing 90 days intermittent jail and a fine for the sexual assault, and a 10-month CSO followed by probation for the unlawfully in a dwelling house offence.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The applicant, an Indigenous person with a history of trauma and mental health challenges, sought a review of a detention order.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed an error of law by failing to apply Gladue principles.

Additionally, the applicant's recent acquisition of stable, supportive housing constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the secondary ground concerns could be addressed through the wraparound supports and housing now available, and ordered the applicant's release on their own recognizance with Bail Program supervision.

The defendant, Brennen Harman, was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that Harman entered the complainant's locked basement apartment while she slept and sexually assaulted her.

The defendant denied the claims, suggesting the complainant fabricated them after being evicted.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, concluding that he had access to the apartment, a demonstrated sexual interest in the complainant, and that the complainant's testimony was credible and corroborated by other evidence, rebutting the fabrication defence.

The accused, Tyler Carter, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two 14-year-old complainants.

A joint submission for a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment followed by three years probation was presented.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainants' age and the multiple acts of sexual interference, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youthfulness at the time of the offence, lack of prior criminal record for these types of offences, and motivation for treatment for complex mental health challenges.

The defence sought additional credit for pre-sentence custody due to COVID-19 risks in prison, which the court denied, finding the joint submission already lenient and further reduction disproportionate.

The court accepted the joint submission and imposed the recommended sentence, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, and communication/proximity prohibitions.

The accused pleaded guilty to exposing his genital organs to his 11-year-old step-daughter contrary to section 173(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The offence was the beginning of a pattern of sexual exploitation of the victim.

The accused is a recidivist with a prior conviction for sexual assault on his niece.

The court considered 812 text messages exchanged between the accused and the victim over a six-month period as evidence of uncharged conduct under section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The parties disagreed on the amount of presentence custody to be attributed to the sentence, with the Crown seeking 10 months and the defence seeking 5 months and 29 days to avoid immigration consequences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and ancillary orders.