Magdalena Wyszomierska

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident at an apartment.

The accused admitted to causing the death and injuries but raised the defence of advanced intoxication due to polysubstance abuse (alcohol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl).

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his memory and consumption at the scene, finding his post-offence conduct demonstrated an ability to foresee the consequences of his actions.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for second-degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, convicting the accused of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

This decision addresses a Charter application concerning a 95-minute delay in implementing Mr. Mohamed’s s. 10(b) right to counsel following his arrest for impaired driving and related firearms offences.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the delay, primarily caused by the arresting officer’s failure to arrange alternative transport to the station.

However, the evidence of the firearm, ammunition, and breath samples was admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter after a balancing of factors, given the minor impact on the accused’s rights and the strong public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court acquitted Mr. Mohamed on the firearms-related charges due to insufficient evidence linking him to the firearm but convicted him on impaired driving and over-80 charges based on reliable breathalyzer evidence.

The accused, Roydel Ramsay-Morris, was charged with multiple firearm-related offences following the execution of two search warrants.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no breach of s. 10(a) (right to be informed of reason for arrest).

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) (right to counsel) due to significant delay in providing rights to counsel and a lack of privacy during the initial call to counsel.

Applying the Grant test for exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's Charter-protected rights outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the loaded firearm and associated ammunition were excluded as evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The accused, Dennis Mensah and Marvin Nyarko Mensah, were sentenced following a judge-alone trial where Dennis was found guilty of firearms and drug trafficking offences (fentanyl and carfentanil), and Marvin was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs, the presence of a loaded firearm (for Dennis), and the sophistication of the operation.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, social context evidence of anti-black racism and growing up in a high-crime, low-income area, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay some firearms charges for Dennis.

Dennis received a total sentence of 4.5 years, and Marvin received 5.5 years, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and forfeiture of seized items.

Moses Water breached his conditional sentence order (CSO) by violating house arrest, failing to carry his order, and assaulting someone.

The court found the breaches serious and wilful.

Despite 72 days already spent in custody due to the suspension of his CSO, the court determined this was insufficient.

Applying the principles of sentencing and the breach regime under the Criminal Code, the court ordered an additional 90 days in custody, followed by a modified conditional sentence with extended house arrest and curfew periods, emphasizing deterrence and rehabilitation.

This decision concerns the sentencing of three defendants involved in a home invasion that resulted in a death and injury.

Trevor Kotzma and Michael Rodgers pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while Alexander Nicholas Mahon-Fernandes pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the violence inflicted, and the profound impact on victims.

Mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, were also weighed.

For Mahon-Fernandes, his lack of prior criminal record and significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail were particularly noted.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions for Kotzma and Rodgers, and imposed a penitentiary sentence for Mahon-Fernandes, slightly less than the Crown's request, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence despite his first-offender status.

The accused, two brothers, were charged with various drug trafficking, firearms, and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of contraband found in secret compartments in two vehicles and cash found in an apartment.

The court found both accused guilty of the offences relating to the vehicles, concluding that their exclusive or near-exclusive use of the vehicles and the presence of personal items in the secret compartments left no other reasonable inference than guilt.

However, both accused were acquitted of possessing the cash found in the apartment, as other individuals had access to the unit, raising a reasonable doubt.

Mohamud Dirie appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting ante mortem hearsay statements and that the jury charge was unbalanced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the pre-trial evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of the deceased's statements about fear and prior incidents, or in the trial judge's decision not to allow viva voce cross-examination of a witness on the voir dire.

The court also found the jury charge was fair and balanced, despite the trial judge's permissible expressions of opinion on the evidence.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including discharging a firearm at a police officer during a gas station shootout and engaging in a 10-hour armed standoff at his boobytrapped home.

The police seized a massive arsenal of firearms, ammunition, and explosives from the residence.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the offences, the offender's prior firearms record, and the breach of prohibition orders against mitigating factors including guilty pleas and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 18 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, a Black man with a history of foster care abuse and a criminal record, applied for a bail review after being detained on firearms charges.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, placing significant weight on s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code regarding the overrepresentation of Black individuals in the justice system.

The court found that the proposed release plan, involving strict house arrest and two reliable sureties, adequately addressed the risks.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on bail.

The offender, Mageed Bedawi Tago, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, careless use of a firearm, and breach of a release order.

The Crown sought a sentence of 22 months imprisonment, while the defence sought 15 months, both accounting for mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating circumstances, including the public nature of the offence, flight from police, and breach of bail, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, rehabilitative prospects, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19.

The court determined a fit sentence of 22 months imprisonment, with 7 months credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 15 months to serve.

Ancillary orders included a two-year probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA sample order.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

In a first degree murder jury trial, the accused brought a Charter application to exclude taxi dispatch records and related audio recordings voluntarily provided by a taxi company to police without judicial authorization.

The court held that the accused had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the basic service-order information, including phone numbers, pickup locations, first names used, and associated audio of brief taxi-ordering calls, such that no search or seizure occurred for s. 8 purposes.

In the alternative, the court found that the October 2017 police requests were justified by exigent circumstances arising from the immediate aftermath of a homicide and concern for public safety, the taxi driver, and preservation of evidence, while the later May 2020 request would have been unreasonable if s. 8 were engaged.

Applying the Grant factors in the further alternative, the court held that any breach was not serious, the privacy impact was minimal, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits strongly favoured admission.

The exclusion application was dismissed.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from five witnesses to identify the accused in surveillance videos.

The witnesses, including a police officer and four security guards, had prior interactions with the accused in the community.

The court applied the test for non-expert opinion evidence of identity, finding that each witness had a sufficient prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was overly prejudicial or tainted by the witnesses' knowledge of the investigation.

The Crown's application to adduce the recognition evidence was granted.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit a Resident Information Form for an apartment unit as a business record under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused objected, arguing the form was not created in the ordinary course of business, contained double hearsay, and lacked threshold reliability.

The court dismissed the objections, finding the form was routinely collected and relied upon by property management, satisfying the statutory requirements for admissibility.

The form was admitted into evidence.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a third-party records application seeking police records relating to an alleged co-party to advance a third-party suspect defence.

The court held that occurrence and arrest reports from the investigating agency (Toronto Police) where the alleged co-party is a suspect or accused are first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe.

Records from a non-investigating agency (Niagara Regional Police) met the 'likely relevant' threshold under O'Connor and were ordered produced to the court for review.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, flight from police, and possession of a prohibited firearm while prohibited.

He fled from police in a vehicle and on foot, discarding a loaded handgun with a removed serial number.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to four years in custody, leaving 22 months and 15 days to serve after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence arose from an incident at Lawrence Square Mall on March 19, 2019, where the offender carried a loaded restricted firearm into a busy shopping mall during afternoon hours and produced it during a physical altercation.

The offender did not admit that his firearm discharged the round that struck the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of three years less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, additional credit for lockdown conditions, and further credit for COVID-19 confinement, resulting in 333 days remaining to be served, followed by 24 months probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder after being pressured by co-accused to help locate the victim, who was subsequently shot and killed by one of the co-accused.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 5.5 years, reduced to 18 months after crediting 48 months for pre-trial custody and lockdown conditions.

The court noted the accused's cooperation with the Crown, his youth, Indigenous background, and lack of prior adult record as mitigating factors.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused of first-degree murder and committing him only on second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the judge committed jurisdictional error by ignoring inferences favourable to the Crown and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court agreed, finding the preliminary inquiry judge erred by drawing an inference favourable to the accused regarding the interaction with the victim, and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of planning, such as the accused's change of clothing and pre-arranged taxi escape.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal on first-degree murder.