Malaika Aaliyah Henriques

The accused was convicted of eleven criminal offences related to human trafficking of two female complainants in the sex trade.

The offences included exercising control over the victims for exploitation, receiving financial benefits from their sexual services, assault, and sexual assault.

The accused played a critical leadership role as the "Queen of the Preem Team," grooming and controlling the victims while working with her boyfriend and his associate.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7½ years imprisonment (effectively 8 years with custodial credits), finding the accused was not a victim but a perpetrator who played an integral role in the exploitation.

This decision concerns an application by Brandi Stewart-Sperry for a directed verdict following the close of the Crown’s case in a first-degree murder trial.

Stewart-Sperry argued that there was insufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict her, particularly regarding her knowledge of the co-accused’s possession of a firearm and intent to shoot a police officer.

The court reviewed the legal principles for directed verdicts, the use of circumstantial and after-the-fact conduct evidence, and found that there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could convict.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns the conviction of Rebecca Horton on multiple counts related to human trafficking, procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, assault, and sexual assault involving two complainants, one of whom was under 18.

The court found that Horton, together with her then-boyfriend and another accused, operated a sex trade business in Toronto, exploiting vulnerable young women.

The judgment details the evidence, including text messages, complainant testimony, and the legal standards for each offence, ultimately finding Horton guilty on the majority of counts.

The accused was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for shooting the victim.

The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

The court noted that this was the accused's second first-degree murder conviction, but due to the Supreme Court's decision in Bissonnette, consecutive periods of parole ineligibility could not be imposed.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime non-communication order with the victim's family and a key witness.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss the applicant's spousal support claim on the basis that she did not meet the definition of "spouse" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion for interim disbursements.

The court dismissed the applicant's adjournment request, finding she had ample time to secure counsel.

Applying the Hryniak v. Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the threshold question of whether the applicant was a spouse.

Based on extensive objective evidence, including the parties' statutory declaration for immigration purposes, tax returns, driver's licenses, and third-party affidavits, the court found that the parties did not cohabit continuously for three years and did not otherwise meet the definition of "spouse" as interpreted by the Molodowich v. Penttinen factors.

The court noted significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was granted, and the applicant's claims were dismissed.