Marco Giuseppe Forte

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun, large quantities of cocaine and other drugs, ammunition, cash, and trafficking paraphernalia in a vehicle.

The court treated the offender as a mid-level trafficker and held that the drug, firearm, and prohibition-breach sentences should be consecutive, subject to the totality principle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, while giving some weight to remorse, rehabilitation, family support, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.

Enhanced credit was granted for presentence custody, including lockdowns and triple bunking, resulting in a total sentence of approximately seven years and just under ten months, together with lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, forfeiture, and counselling recommendation.

The offender was sentenced for human trafficking, procuring, and related offences across two indictments.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought time served.

The court found that the offender experienced exceptionally harsh conditions during pre-sentence custody, including multiple assaults by other inmates and guards, extensive lockdowns, and triple-bunking.

Applying maximum statutory credit and additional mitigation for the harsh conditions, the court imposed a global net sentence of 265 days' imprisonment and a $35,000 restitution order.

This decision addresses Ali Baek's Charter application to exclude evidence (10 kg of cocaine) seized from his residence, alleging breaches of his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a Garofoli review of the warrants and orders, finding that the initial tracking warrant and production orders were issued without reasonable grounds due to erroneous, speculative, and misleading information provided by the police.

The police conduct was characterized as serious, involving reckless disregard for Charter rights and a failure of full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on Baek's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The accused were tried on multiple charges related to human trafficking, procuring, and sexual assault involving a young female complainant.

The court found the primary accused guilty of human trafficking, procuring, advertising sexual services, and receiving a material benefit, relying heavily on text messages that demonstrated a coercive quota system and exploitative control over the complainant's movements.

However, the court acquitted the primary accused of sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt arising from credibility issues with both the complainant and the accused.

The co-accused was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient reliable evidence.

This sentencing decision concerns Peter Stewart, who pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl and a loaded prohibited handgun.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of three to four years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the loaded firearm and the dangerous combination of guns and drugs, alongside numerous mitigating factors.

Key mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, first-offender status, strong family support, consistent employment, and compliance with strict bail conditions for over four years.

Crucially, the court gave significant weight to an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (EPSR) detailing systemic anti-Black racism, poverty, and community violence that diminished the offender's moral blameworthiness and contributed to his choices.

Applying principles from R. v. Morris and R. v. Proulx, the court determined that a penitentiary sentence was not required and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, minus credit for pre-trial custody, followed by two years of probation, with strict house arrest conditions.

The accused, Osman, applied for a directed verdict on a charge of accessory after the fact to murder.

Osman had assisted the principal offender in escaping after a shooting, but the victim did not die until three days later.

The Crown conceded the accused could not be convicted of the charged offence since the victim was alive at the time of assistance, but argued for a conviction on the included offence of accessory after the fact to attempt murder.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that accessory after the fact to attempt murder is not an included offence under s. 662(1) and cannot be applied via s. 660 in these circumstances.

The application was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.

The applicants sought the return of seized cash and property under s. 490(9)(c) of the Criminal Code after the initial detention order expired.

The police seized $43,390 CAD and $2 USD, along with a Louis Vuitton pouch and hat, during an inventory search following a drinking and driving investigation.

The applicants provided affidavits asserting lawful ownership, with one applicant claiming the majority of the cash as rental income and the other claiming a smaller portion and the personal items.

Despite suspicious circumstances noted by the Crown regarding the money's storage and the vehicle's VIN, the court found the applicants' unchallenged evidence of lawful ownership on a balance of probabilities to be credible.

The application for the return of property was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

The Crown sought a three-year prison sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including his youth, systemic anti-Black racism, strict compliance with bail conditions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, Loic Simeu, was charged with unlawful confinement, obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault police, and uttering threats.

He pleaded guilty to obtaining sexual services for consideration but contested the other charges.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (AP), a friend (MM), police officers, and the accused.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the Crown's witness testimonies, particularly regarding the complainant's prior dishonesty with police and failure to provide crucial information during a 911 call.

The court also scrutinized the police officers' accounts of the accused's arrest and behaviour, noting their perceptions were colored by initial misinformation.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charges of threatening, unlawful confinement, and assault police beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their dismissal.

Following a wiretap prosecution involving multiple accused, the court considered conspiracy, firearms trafficking by offer, drug trafficking conspiracy, robbery conspiracy, and criminal organization allegations arising from intercepted jail and street communications.

The court acquitted on the firearm conspiracy counts after finding a reasonable doubt whether one accused merely pretended to agree, but convicted that accused of offering to transfer a firearm because he made a genuine-looking offer perceived as such by the recipient.

A co-accused's guilty plea to conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance was narrowed on the facts to cocaine rather than heroin.

The court rejected the robbery conspiracy and criminal organization allegations, holding the evidence showed loosely connected criminal conduct and friendship networks rather than the structure, continuity, and cohesion required for a criminal organization.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence during the cross-examination of a Crown witness in a criminal trial.

The defence sought to ask questions, which the Crown objected to on grounds of relevance and offending section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court found section 276 applicable, adopting reasoning from R. v. Amdurski and R. v. Barton, and ruled on which specific questions could be asked, balancing relevance with the protective purposes of section 276.

During a criminal trial, the Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for two witnesses to testify by videoconference.

The first witness, a police officer on vacation, was permitted to testify from a remote courthouse on consent.

The second witness, a civilian with a high-risk pregnancy, was permitted to testify from her home over the defence's objection that she should testify from a formal setting.

The court found that the solemnity of the proceedings and security concerns could be adequately addressed while allowing her to testify from home, minimizing health risks.

The Crown and the accused brought six pre-trial motions relating to a joint trial for murder and accessory after the fact.

During the hearing, the accused Osman failed to appear, and the court found he had absconded under s. 475 of the Criminal Code, allowing the motions to proceed in his absence.

The court granted a consent order protecting the identities of three victim witnesses.

The court ruled that evidence of the accused's after-the-fact conduct, including flight and a subsequent meeting, was admissible for limited purposes.

Osman's s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was reasonably mitigated by the Crown.

Khiar's s. 8 Charter application to exclude video surveillance obtained from his condominium's property manager without a warrant was dismissed, as he had a low expectation of privacy in the common areas.

Finally, the court admitted the expert opinion evidence of a forensic video analyst, subject to limitations on tracking and comparing clothing characteristics.

The applicants, two of three co-accused in a large project prosecution involving a criminal organization, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was delayed by six weeks to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the third co-accused.

The court found that the net delay for one applicant fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

For the other applicant, the court found that the delay exceeded the ceiling but was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically case complexity and the strong public interest in holding a joint trial.

Both applications were dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with "over 80" after being stopped for cell phone use while driving.

The trial judge found racial profiling, excluded breathalyzer readings, and acquitted.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred by misapprehending evidence, failing to consider an innocent mistake as an alternative to racial profiling, and improperly drawing inferences from the police's failure to investigate the cell phone.

The trial judge's finding of "unconscious" racial profiling by an honest officer was deemed a stretch and difficult to substantiate.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal vacated, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, Dejan Mitrovic, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The charges stemmed from a large criminal organization investigation (Project Sizzle) involving drug trafficking and conspiracy.

The court calculated the gross delay from arrest to projected end of trial as 31 months and 28 days.

After deducting periods attributable to defence delay (unavailability of counsel, failure to complete pre-trial reports, preliminary inquiry scheduling issues) and exceptional circumstances (preliminary inquiry judge's deliberation time), the net delay was found to be 27.5 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that he took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop on a highway.

The defence alleged that the stop was based on racial profiling and constituted an arbitrary detention in breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer was honest in her testimony, the evidence demonstrated an absence of objective grounds for the detention and that the stop was motivated by non-conscious racial bias.

The court concluded that the officer's perception of the accused—a Black male driving early in the morning wearing a hooded sweatshirt with out-of-province license plates—unwittingly triggered non-conscious racial stereotyping.

The court excluded the breath analysis evidence as a result of the arbitrary detention.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking arising from Project Ice Castle (York Region charges), production of ketamine arising from Project Apollo (Toronto charges), and failure to comply with recognizance.

The accused was arrested in April 2015 in possession of 60 kilograms of ketamine and subsequently engaged in ketamine production at three clandestine drug laboratories in Toronto while on bail awaiting trial.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, consisting of 7 years and 6 months for possession for trafficking, 7 years and 6 months for production (consecutive), and 6 months for failure to comply.

The court credited 447 days of pre-trial custody at enhanced rates for lockdown periods and strict bail conditions.

Trevor Khan faced four criminal charges including failing to stop for a peace officer, dangerous driving, possession of a stolen vehicle, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, stemming from a stolen SUV crashing after a police pursuit.

The central issue at trial was the identification of Khan as the driver.

The court analyzed witness descriptions of the driver's appearance and clothing against Khan's actual appearance and the circumstances of the crash and flight.

Due to inconsistencies in witness descriptions and a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of a second person in the vehicle, the court found a reasonable doubt that Khan was the driver.

Consequently, Khan was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, breach of recognizance, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The complainant, a heroin addict with a criminal history, alleged a violent attack and robbery by the accused and others.

The court found the complainant to be an incredible and unreliable witness due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, mistaken identifications, and admitted lies.

While the complainant suffered serious injuries, the Crown failed to prove the accused's involvement in the robbery and aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of robbery, aggravated assault, and breach of probation, but found guilty of breach of recognizance based on his plea and supporting evidence.