Luka Rados

Following a jury trial, the sentencing court addressed convictions for human trafficking and procuring a complainant under 18, with acquittals on sexual interference and assault-with-a-weapon counts.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence required substantial penitentiary terms given the complainant's youth, vulnerability, coercive exploitation, and enduring harm, while also weighing mitigation including limited or absent records and subordinate roles in a joint enterprise.

The court rejected a 12-year Crown position and a conditional-sentence defence position, finding both inconsistent with proportionality and parity.

The court imposed six-year custodial sentences on each offender, less pre-sentence custody credit, and granted ancillary non-communication, DNA, weapons prohibition, and 20-year SOIRA orders, while declining requested s. 161 orders.

The accused, Jevanny Walters, Collin Walters, and Raymond Ellis, were charged with unlawful confinement and robbery stemming from two separate incidents at a gaming house.

Jevanny Walters and Raymond Ellis were charged in connection with the first robbery, and all three were charged in relation to the second.

The Crown conceded that unlawful confinement was not established for the second robbery.

The primary issue was the identification of the perpetrators, relying on surveillance footage, cell phone records, and similar act evidence.

The court found Jevanny Walters guilty on all remaining counts (1, 2, and 4) and Collin Walters guilty on Count 4.

Raymond Ellis was acquitted on all counts (1, 2, and 4), as the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his possession and use of a key cell phone at the time of the robberies, despite circumstantial evidence.

The defendant, Abdirahman Mohiadin, was convicted on six counts related to the possession of a loaded handgun in an automobile.

The court considered aggravating factors, including carrying a loaded handgun in public, and mitigating factors, such as the defendant's youth, first-time offender status, challenging background, and time spent under house arrest.

The Crown sought a sentence of 32-36 months, while the defence sought no more than 21 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 38 months imprisonment, concurrent sentences for lesser counts, pre-sentence custody credit, a weapons prohibition order, and a DNA sample order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the proliferation of gun violence.

A young person was charged with 16 firearms and drug-related offences.

Following a trial in February and March 2019, the court found the accused guilty of four charges, including possession of a loaded firearm.

The accused launched a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the Charter violations, but the court did not exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

At sentencing, the Crown sought 9-12 months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a conditional discharge.

The court found the case to be exceptional under section 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, warranting a custodial sentence.

However, considering the accused's circumstances, rehabilitation progress, and mitigating factors, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order rather than secure or open custody.

A young person was charged with 16 firearms and drug-related offences following a high-risk police takedown in a Toronto parking garage.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the searches conducted on Charter grounds.

The Crown conceded that the arrest was unlawful and violated the accused's section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court found that while the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest, they would have had authority to conduct an investigative detention based on bullet holes discovered in the vehicle.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the evidence, finding that while the Charter violations were serious, the impact on the accused was mitigated by the availability of investigative detention powers, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove most charges beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting only on one count each under sections 91(1), 92(1), 94(2), and 95(1) of the Criminal Code relating to the firearm found on the accused's person.

The accused, M.K., was charged with sexual assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, death threats, and simple assault against his wife, A.H., following their arranged marriage and her arrival in Canada.

The case was a pure credibility contest with no significant corroboration.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding forcible confinement to be substantially exaggerated and unreliable, particularly as the accused was absent for most of the alleged confinement period.

The Crown's cross-examination of the accused and defence witnesses was criticized for its demeaning tone, incivility, and unfairness, including misrepresenting a police statement.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's allegations of criminal conduct unreliable and unsafe for a finding of guilt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a formal police interview.

The accused had been arrested after fleeing police and was apprehended with the assistance of a police dog, resulting in significant bite injuries.

Prior to the interview, the accused experienced severe pain, sleep deprivation, and a lack of food.

The court found no police trickery or improper threats or promises.

However, considering the cumulative effect of the accused's pain, sleep deprivation, medication, and lack of food, the court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's statements were voluntary.

The statements were ruled inadmissible.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

The accused was charged with offences related to a stabbing and a firearm found in his vehicle.

A civilian witness, fearing for his safety, broke into the accused's car and exposed an AK-47 to police.

The accused brought Charter applications arguing the witness acted as a state agent encouraged by police to bypass a search warrant, and that police failed to preserve video evidence of the break-in.

The court found the witness was not a state agent, as police did not encourage the break-in.

While police failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the video evidence, the prejudice was not significant enough to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with robbery and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence following a driveway robbery in which a victim was assaulted and property stolen.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including a palm print found on the victim’s vehicle that matched the accused.

Expert evidence confirmed the print match but could not determine when the print was placed on the vehicle.

The court held that fingerprint or palm print evidence alone is insufficient to establish guilt unless the surrounding evidence proves the print was made during the commission of the offence.

Because the evidence left open a reasonable possibility that the print was placed on the vehicle at another time, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and drug offences after police executed a telewarrant at his apartment and seized an unregistered rifle, an over-capacity magazine, ammunition, and marijuana.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging the warrant was invalid due to insufficient grounds and improper editing of the information to obtain (ITO) relating to a confidential informant.

The court reviewed the warrant under the Garofoli framework, addressed disclosure issues arising from informer privilege, and considered the sufficiency of the judicial summary and investigative corroboration.

Although the informant lacked a proven track record and had self-interested motivations, the tip was detailed, recent, and based on articulated means of knowledge, and was partially corroborated by police investigation.

Applying the totality of the circumstances test from DeBot and related authorities, the court held the issuing justice could reasonably have found reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The accused was convicted after trial of unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession of a loaded handgun in public while under a prohibition order and while partially impaired by alcohol and marijuana, as well as the accused’s youth record.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of an adult criminal record, strong family and community support, employment prospects, and potential for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes while recognizing rehabilitation prospects, the court imposed a total sentence of three and a half years.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for pre‑sentence custody, resulting in credit of 29 months.

The accused was charged with robbery while armed with an imitation firearm.

The Crown case depended primarily on eyewitness identification by the complainant, including a photo line-up identification and an in-court identification.

The court held that the photo line-up was problematic because the accused was the only person displaying distinctive features previously described by the witness, including a forehead scar and afro hairstyle.

Given the well‑recognized dangers of eyewitness identification and the lack of confirmatory evidence, the court assigned little weight to the identification evidence.

The Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and money laundering, sought an order under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to access $271,100 in seized funds for living and legal expenses.

The court dismissed the request for living expenses, finding the applicant failed to prove he had no other means available.

However, the court granted access to the funds for reasonable legal expenses related to the preliminary inquiry, capping the amount at $60,000 and setting specific hourly rates for counsel.