Leanna Guzzo

Two accused were jointly charged on a fourteen-count indictment involving sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, making and possessing child pornography.

The offences were alleged to have occurred over more than two decades involving multiple complainants who were children of a family member of one accused.

The court considered a similar fact application by the Crown, ultimately dismissing the application with respect to two complainants whose evidence was found to be tainted by collusion and whose allegations of involvement by one accused were only disclosed after police informed one complainant of an unrelated assault on her child.

One accused pleaded guilty mid-trial to multiple counts involving child pornography and sexual assaults on two complainants.

On the remaining counts, the court found the first accused guilty of sexual assault on one complainant and guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography, while acquitting both accused of the remaining contested charges.

The court found insufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt sexual assaults by the first accused on the other complainants, whose evidence was intertwined with collusion-tainted allegations.

A young person (DP), age 15 at the time of the alleged offence, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly penetrating the complainant (ML) anally while she slept during a birthday sleepover.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, two witnesses present at the sleepover, and the accused.

The court found the accused not guilty, concluding that while the complainant appeared credible and genuinely believed the assault occurred, her evidence regarding the critical two-minute window of the alleged offence raised reliability concerns given her extreme intoxication and initial uncertainty.

The accused's evidence, though also raising reliability concerns due to his intoxication and drug use, was sufficiently plausible to create reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court sentenced Spiro Tsakopoulos for manslaughter after a guilty plea, following the shooting death of Bryson Murle.

The sentencing reasons review the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range for manslaughter with a firearm and imposed a 10-year sentence before credit for pre-sentence custody, with appropriate statutory orders.

Dale Bowen pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors including the gravity of the offences, the combination of drugs and guns, and a lengthy criminal record with prior drug and weapons offences, as well as five breaches of firearms prohibition orders.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's moral blameworthiness and life choices.

The court imposed a global sentence of 56 months (4 years and 8 months), with 44 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months imprisonment, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a fatal shooting outside a bar.

After a dispute, the offender handed a mask to an unidentified shooter who then shot the victim.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years and 3 months, arguing for mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including extensive lockdowns and lack of medical care.

The court found the appropriate sentence was 8 years, but reduced it by 6 months to 7.5 years to reflect the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

Jessy Mandino pleaded guilty to two counts of residential break and enter.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3.5 to 4 years, while the defence proposed 2 years.

The court considered Mandino's extensive criminal record and the significant victim impact as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, substance dependency, and the application of Gladue principles due to intergenerational trauma and anti-Indigenous racism, despite the absence of a formal Gladue report.

The court acknowledged that past incarceration had not deterred the offender.

Mandino was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary, concurrent, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application asserting breaches of sections 8 and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court found that the officer lacked objectively reasonable grounds for suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, that the demand for an approved screening device test was not made forthwith as required by statute, and that these breaches violated the accused's section 8 rights.

The court applied the three-part test under section 24(2) of the Charter and determined that exclusion of the breath sample evidence was appropriate to maintain the integrity of the justice system.