Marcella Henschel

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking.

The offences involved 28.7 grams of cocaine and 183.6 grams of fentanyl seized from a rental vehicle and a residential search.

The court found the accused to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inconsistent with the fundamental sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity of fentanyl, and imposed a penitentiary sentence.

Significant mitigating factors — including five years of compliance with stringent bail conditions, prosocial conduct, and severe collateral consequences to young children — reduced the sentence from a starting point of eight years to a net sentence of six years, reflecting one year credit for restrictive bail conditions and three days of pre-trial custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for causing the death of Kenneth Chopee on January 25, 2023.

The accused discovered his personal property in the victim's possession, became enraged, and attacked the victim with bolt cutters and a knife, inflicting devastating injuries including multiple skull fractures and stab wounds.

The accused did not form the specific intent to kill due to his excessive consumption of fentanyl and benzodiazepines.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 years custody, accounting for harsh pre-trial detention conditions and mistreatment by police following arrest.

The sentence reflects the serious nature of the violent offense while considering the accused's rehabilitative efforts in custody and difficult background.

In this decision, the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Franco Tomasone of the charge of refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tomasone unequivocally refused to comply with a lawful approved screening device (ASD) demand.

The judge emphasized the statutory immediacy requirement for providing breath samples but recognized that some flexibility is warranted when confusion arises, particularly when the right to counsel is suspended during an ASD demand.

The court also found that the officer did not have objectively reasonable grounds to suspect Tomasone had alcohol in his body at the time of the demand, rendering the demand unlawful.

The decision highlights the importance of the timing and clarity of demands and refusals in impaired driving investigations.

The accused, Mark Aninon, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The court found him not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, for both offences.

The decision was based on an agreed statement of facts establishing the actus reus and expert psychiatric evidence confirming that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board for disposition, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration in the NCR regime.

Hesam Dowran pleaded guilty to two counts of voyeurism for making surreptitious video recordings for a sexual purpose.

The incidents involved filming a 16-year-old in a public mall and an unidentified nude woman who was a tenant in his Airbnb.

Police found numerous other voyeuristic videos on his devices.

The Crown sought eight months custody and three years probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the repeated and predatory nature of the conduct, the victim's age, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, no prior record, remorse, and significant counselling.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the seriousness and extent of the offences.

Dowran was sentenced to four months custody and two years probation.

The applicant, charged with impaired driving and "80 plus", sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 24 months and 21 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found no defence delay, as the defence diligently pursued core disclosure that was significantly delayed by the Crown and police.

A deduction of three months was made for pandemic-related systemic delay as an exceptional circumstance.

Even with this deduction, the remaining delay of 21 months and 21 days still exceeded the presumptive ceiling, leading the court to grant a stay of proceedings.

Krsna Singh was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Police responded to a Crimestoppers tip about an impaired driver, located the vehicle at Singh's residence, and made an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, which Singh refused.

Singh challenged the lawfulness of his detention and the ASD demand, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention), 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no Charter violations, distinguishing the case from R. v. McColman by noting the police had reasonable grounds to suspect impaired driving based on the specific tip.

The court also found the police acted within their ancillary powers and that Singh was promptly informed of his detention reasons and that his right to counsel was not violated, as he was released as soon as practicable.

Consequently, the court found Singh guilty of the offence.

Zion Lewis, a 20-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the inherent danger of the weapon and its possession after a car accident, and mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty plea, strong rehabilitative prospects, supportive family, harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including contracting COVID-19), and experiences with anti-Black racism.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also rehabilitation, particularly for youthful first offenders, and the relevance of social context evidence to moral blameworthiness.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in 106 days remaining to be served, followed by 2 years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA databank order.

Barjot Minhas pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm and one count of aggravated assault after stabbing two individuals at a house party.

The court considered the serious nature of the injuries, the use of a concealed knife, and the multiple instances of violence as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, first-offender status, positive pre-sentence report, remorse, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conditions of custody.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a global sentence of 18 months custody followed by 2 years probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a dwelling house, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The defendant broke into a residence in Markham, was chased by the homeowner's son, and dropped a bag containing stolen wallets and cannabis.

Police subsequently executed a search warrant on the defendant's residence and located a loaded, sawed-off shotgun with the serial number removed in the defendant's bedroom closet.

The defendant was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition order and a probation order prohibiting weapon possession at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years in the penitentiary, with credit for pre-sentence custody and enhanced credit for harsh detention conditions.

The accused, a young Aboriginal first offender, was convicted of impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml of blood.

She brought constitutional challenges under sections 15 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The section 15 challenge alleged that Ontario's failure to proclaim curative discharge provisions violated equality rights by discriminating against Aboriginal offenders.

The section 12 challenge alleged that the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate, particularly given the requirement to enter a conviction and the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges and imposed a sentence of a $1,200 fine, a 15-month driving prohibition, and two years probation with mandatory alcohol counselling.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused Barker conceded committal on most counts except simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused Duncan challenged committal on all counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused on trafficking charges related to cocaine transactions with an undercover officer on December 19, 2018, and on possession for purpose of trafficking charges related to drugs found in a rental vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Duncan on possession charges related to prescription pills found in his bedroom.

However, the court discharged Duncan on all firearms offences, finding insufficient evidence of his possession of a firearm found in the basement.

The court committed Barker on all firearms offences based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the shoebox where the firearm was found.

The accused pleaded guilty to careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a serious motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of his passenger.

The accident occurred on February 21, 2017, when the accused was driving northbound on Keele Street in Vaughan at an excessive speed in heavy rush hour traffic.

He attempted to pass a slowing vehicle, lost control of his vehicle, which rolled and was struck by an oncoming vehicle.

The passenger, Alwyn Lloyd, a 27-year-old father and husband, died as a result of his injuries.

The court imposed a $1,000 fine, 18 months probation with a requirement to perform 50 hours of community service and attend counselling, and an 18-month driving suspension.

The accused was charged with trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following his arrest on August 8, 2018.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for delay.

Although the net delay of 15 months and 24 days fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases, the court found this was a rare and clear case warranting a stay.

The defence demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings while the Crown caused significant delays through unavailability and serious non-disclosure of search warrant materials for ten months.

The court granted the stay, finding the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The accused was convicted of communicating with a person believed to be under 18 years of age via telecommunication for the purpose of facilitating obtaining sexual services for consideration, contrary to s. 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under s. 12 of the Charter, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate when applied to the specific circumstances of the offender and struck it down as unconstitutional.

The court imposed a sentence of five months imprisonment followed by two years probation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

The defence brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The trial judge found that while the "forthwith" requirement for field sobriety tests was met, the officer lacked reasonable grounds to make a breath demand under section 254(3) because the officer should not have relied on the failure of field sobriety tests given the accused's disclosed medical conditions affecting his ability to stand and his vision impairment.

The trial judge also found the accused was denied access to necessary medication during detention.

The breath samples were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving without properly wearing a seatbelt contrary to section 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice found the appellant guilty based on the officer's testimony that he observed the seatbelt not across the appellant's chest and flapping in the wind, despite the appellant testifying he was wearing the seatbelt at all times and wearing it when stopped.

The appeal court found the trial justice failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles regarding burden of proof and credibility assessment, and that the officer's evidence was insufficiently reliable to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the fleeting observation period and other corroborating evidence.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

The defendant was convicted following trial of multiple human trafficking, prostitution, and child pornography offences committed against two victims: M.C., a 19-year-old woman, and T.T., a 16-year-old minor.

The defendant recruited and exploited both victims for sexual services, exercising control through physical violence, threats, coercion, and isolation.

He posted explicit photographs of both victims online to advertise sexual services.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 9 years; the defence proposed 3 to 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, with all counts concurrent, less credit for 108 days of pre-sentence custody on a 1.5:1 basis, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years, 6 months, and 21 days.

Ancillary orders included a non-contact condition, DNA databank order, 10-year firearms prohibition with lifetime prohibition on restricted firearms, lifetime sex offender registration, and forfeiture of $860 to the victim.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, child pornography, assault, and related offences involving two victims in the sex trade.

The Crown alleged that the accused recruited and exploited the victims, exercised control over their movements and finances, posted advertisements for their sexual services, and created and distributed child pornography involving a minor.

The accused was found guilty on 14 of 15 counts.

The court found that the accused knowingly recruited both victims for exploitation, exercised control through coercion and implied threats, withheld identification documents, assaulted one victim, received financial benefits from their sexual services, and created and distributed child pornography.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief regarding the minor's age, finding instead that he was wilfully blind to her age and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain it.

The appellant appealed his conviction for knowingly making a false or misleading statement to obtain payment for chiropractic services in violation of section 447(2)(a.3) of the Insurance Act.

The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds: that the information was laid outside the limitation period under section 449 of the Insurance Act; that section 449 was unconstitutional as violating sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter; and that his right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of a $10,000 fine, 12 months' probation, and $175 restitution.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the information was properly laid within the limitation period, that section 449 was neither vague nor overbroad and did not engage Charter protections, and that the delay was reasonable under the Jordan framework.

The sentence was found to be fit.