Levi Vandersteen

The court found Davy Hernandez Balan guilty of first degree murder in the death of Maxim Karyakin.

The main issue was whether Mr. Balan, who has a history of schizophrenia and previous findings of not criminally responsible due to mental disorder (NCR-MD), was criminally responsible for the killing.

The court accepted that Mr. Balan suffered from schizophrenia but was not satisfied that the mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing his act was morally wrong.

The court found that the murder was planned and deliberate, and that Mr. Balan had the requisite intent for murder.

The offender, Joshua Johnson, was found guilty of manslaughter after being indicted for second-degree murder.

The court conducted a fact-finding exercise to determine the basis of the jury's verdict, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was the principal offender who fatally shot the victim, Daniel Boima, during a planned robbery.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors such as the planned robbery, use of a firearm, the victim being unarmed, the shooting in a residential area, and the offender's attempts to cover up the crime.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, strong family support, and particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 4 years to serve, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

T.P., a young person, sought a review of his youth sentence of 17 months secure custody and 8 months 25 days community supervision for five bank robberies.

The court, pursuant to s. 94(19) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, considered T.P.'s progress in custody, including his positive behaviour, educational pursuits, and efforts towards rehabilitation, despite being transferred to an adult facility where rehabilitative programming was limited.

The court found that T.P. met the burden to show sufficient change to justify a modification of his sentence, concluding that further programming available in the community would better serve his rehabilitation and the long-term protection of society.

The court ordered T.P.'s release from custody to conditional supervision with strict conditions.

The offender, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, careless storage of ammunition, and possession of fentanyl and crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's background, including the impact of systemic anti-black racism, his positive rehabilitative steps, and his lengthy period on strict bail.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a motion under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the warrant lacked sufficient grounds to justify the search of his residence and vehicle, and that the affiant misled the issuing justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, including redacted confidential informant information, provided a credibly-based probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the applicant's residence and in his vehicle.

The court concluded that the applicant's section 8 rights were not breached.

Michael MacKinnon was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a knife, the victims being unarmed, the severe loss to the deceased's family, and the life-threatening injuries to the aggravated assault victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's pro-social life for 20 years, strong family support, and a diagnosis of PTSD stemming from childhood trauma and a past shooting incident.

The court rejected the Crown's submission that the dated criminal record was an aggravating factor and that the mental health issues should be given limited weight.

A total sentence of 9 years imprisonment was imposed, with 3 years concurrent for aggravated assault, after accounting for 69 months (5 years and 9 months) credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 39 months (3 years and 3 months) remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

During a trial for murder and attempted murder, the Crown and defence brought evidentiary applications.

The Crown sought to admit hearsay statements made by the surviving victim to first responders shortly after being stabbed.

The court admitted the statements under the spontaneous utterance exception.

The defence sought to admit evidence of the deceased victim's disposition to instigate confrontations when intoxicated, pursuant to Scopelliti.

The court admitted the disposition evidence, finding it relevant to the issue of who instigated the confrontation, but also permitted the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused's prior robbery conviction in response.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident outside a bar.

The accused raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, arguing he experienced a dissociative episode triggered by post-traumatic stress disorder after hearing a threat to shoot.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding the accused's evidence of dissociation and lack of memory lacked credibility, particularly given his organized post-offence conduct.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the suddenness of the attack, the single stab wounds, and the accused's intoxication and PTSD.

The accused was found not guilty of the charged offences but guilty of the included offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with Blow Over 80.

During a Charter voir dire, the defence argued that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice by failing to clarify his repeated requests to speak to his brother, who had contact information for criminal lawyers, and by channeling him to duty counsel.

The court found a substantive and serious s. 10(b) violation, as the police did not take the accused's requests seriously and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice.

Applying the Grant analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath readings, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

The accused, on trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder during the COVID-19 pandemic, brought a motion requesting that civilian witnesses testify without masks so their demeanour could be assessed.

The trial judge applied the framework from R. v. S. (N.) to balance the accused's fair trial rights against the public health interest in limiting virus transmission.

The court held that requiring witnesses to remain masked did not create a serious risk to trial fairness, as demeanour is not determinative of credibility.

The court further noted that testimony by videoconference was a reasonable alternative that accommodated both interests.

The motion was dismissed, and witnesses were directed to remain masked.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, attempted murder, and firearms offences following two altercations with the complainant.

In the first incident, the accused confronted the complainant in his van while holding a chair leg.

In the second incident, shots were fired at the complainant in a parking lot.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon for the first incident.

However, relying on circumstantial evidence and the Villaroman framework, the court found the accused not guilty of the attempted murder and firearms charges, as there was a reasonable possibility that another individual present at the scene was the shooter.

Aruran Suthakaran was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission (gun violence in a public place with transferred intent), the offender's character (no prior record, strong family support), and jury recommendations (10 years parole ineligibility).

Despite the jury's recommendation, the court imposed a 12-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for gun-related crimes, while acknowledging the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and mandatory DNA order were also imposed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Suthakaran, during a videotaped in-custody interview, intending to use them for cross-examination if he testified.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to oppressive circumstances during the interview.

The court found that despite the police's persistence and the accused's emotional state and repeated requests to end the interview, the circumstances did not amount to oppression.

The statements were deemed voluntary and admissible.

The accused was convicted after trial of failing to stop while being pursued by police, dangerous driving, and failing to stop after an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, arising from a police chase on January 18, 2016.

A Charter breach was found due to the Crown's failure to disclose a critical witness statement.

The court determined that a sentence reduction was the appropriate remedy, sentencing the accused as if he had pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, while also accounting for the stress of enduring trial.

The accused received 90 days intermittent on dangerous driving and four months conditional sentences on the flight charges, with a 12-month driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results on the basis of alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found no breach of section 8 or 9 rights, as the initial police conversation was lawful and the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odour of alcohol.

The court also found no breach of section 10(b) rights, as police made diligent efforts to facilitate the accused's right to counsel of choice and provided adequate information regarding legal rights.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with two counts of Break & Enter with Intent, three counts of Mischief under $5000, three counts of Theft under $5000, and two counts of Fail to Comply with Probation.

The determinative issue was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from two police officers who had prior contact with the accused and identified him from surveillance video.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this recognition evidence.

The court found that both officers were sufficiently familiar with the accused through multiple prior encounters and arrests, placing them in a better position than the court to identify the accused in the video.

The recognition evidence was admitted as admissible at trial.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from incidents on September 7, 2015: fraudulently obtaining beverages at a bar, threatening bodily harm to a patron, and assaulting another individual.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused fraudulently obtained beverages by ordering drinks, offering insufficient payment, and leaving without paying.

The accused was found guilty of threatening serious bodily harm after losing his temper and threatening to hit the patron with a chair and kick him in the ribs.

However, the assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused's assault on the victim's companion was committed as part of a common purpose to assault the victim or was an independent act of malice.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date charges were laid to the anticipated end of trial was over 41 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted periods of defence delay caused by retainer issues and counsel unavailability, as well as delay attributable to discrete exceptional circumstances including a Crown family emergency and defence counsel's health issues.

The remaining operative delay was calculated at under 29 months, which fell below the 30-month ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, as the defence did not take meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

The application was dismissed.