Marco Sciarra

The accused, Alexander Campbell and Tyler Josling, were charged with manslaughter after restraining Frank Harbalis during a violent incident at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the force used, including a chokehold, was excessive and outside the scope of lawful self-defence or defence of others.

The court found that while a brief chokehold was applied, the actions of the accused were not unreasonable in the circumstances, given the sudden and dangerous situation.

Both were acquitted.

Juan-Manuel Guevara was found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a dated criminal record and the firearm's presence in a public place, and mitigating factors such as strong family support, pro-social activities, and good rehabilitation prospects.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months, concurrent for the cocaine possession, with credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 37 months and 1 day.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

Dallas Ly was found guilty of second-degree murder of his mother.

This ruling determines his parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the offender's character, jury recommendations, and sentencing objectives.

Aggravating factors included the brutal domestic homicide, desecration of remains by decapitation, and discarding the body by the roadside.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, undiagnosed mental health issues, and rehabilitation potential.

The court set the parole ineligibility period at 13 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision addresses two applications for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay, brought by two co-accused charged with sexual assault.

The court determined that the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters applied, rather than the 30-month ceiling for cases with a preliminary inquiry, because the scheduled preliminary inquiry was not completed due to the Crown withdrawing preliminary inquiry-eligible counts and consenting to re-election to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the Crown's tactical decision not to seek an 11(b) waiver at the time of re-election was significant.

After calculating the total delay and deducting periods attributable to defence counsel unavailability and a specific period of COVID-19 related backlog (92 days for trial scheduling and judicial pre-trial scheduling), the net delay for both accused exceeded the 18-month ceiling (19.75 months for one, 20 months for the other).

Consequently, the court ordered a stay of proceedings for both accused.

The defendants were sentenced following their convictions for kidnapping (both defendants) and aggravated assault, robbery, and uttering death threats (one defendant).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm and severe injuries to the victim, and mitigating factors such as youth, lack of prior records, and compliance with release conditions.

The decision also addressed constitutional challenges to minimum sentences and a victim restitution request.

The first defendant received 4 years and 3 months for kidnapping, while the second defendant received a global sentence of 4 years and 9 months for kidnapping, aggravated assault, and robbery (death threats stayed).

The applicant, facing drug and firearm charges, brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) during his arrests.

The Crown conceded violations of sections 8 and 9 regarding the "no-knock" entry during the second arrest but argued the delay in access to counsel was reasonable.

The court found that the police's unannounced entry into the applicant's home to execute a Feeney warrant, without judicial authorization for such entry and without exigent circumstances, violated his section 7 and 8 Charter rights.

The court found the delay in access to counsel was not unreasonable in the circumstances of both arrests.

As a remedy for the Charter violations related to the Feeney warrant execution, the court granted a partial stay of proceedings, specifically staying the firearm-related charges, but allowed the drug trafficking charges to proceed.

The applicant, Daveion Brown, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay, arguing the total delay of 797 days (26 months and 6 days) exceeded the Jordan ceiling.

The Crown contended that defence delay and exceptional circumstances (discrete events, case complexity) justified the delay.

The court found 92 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 705 days (23.2 months), which still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

While acknowledging the case's complexity, the court rejected the Crown's arguments for discrete events and found the Crown's prosecution plan, despite a significant conflict-of-interest issue, was not unreasonable in minimizing delay for this complex case.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

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.

Following a jury trial where the defendants were convicted of kidnapping and other offences, the Crown sought a Gardiner ruling to establish that a firearm was used during the commission of the offences.

The court reviewed the evidence, including victim testimony, photographs of injuries, and security footage.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that an operative firearm was used by a co-perpetrator to threaten and assault the victim during the kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault, and uttering of death threats.

This finding triggers mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under the Criminal Code.

The defendant, Aleksandr Shaporov, was found guilty of possessing and accessing child pornography following an international investigation into the "Welcome to Video" (W2V) website, a child pornography platform on the Dark Web.

The prosecution presented extensive electronic evidence, including Bitcoin transactions from the defendant's Coinbase account to W2V, and downloaded child pornography files found on his computer.

The defence argued that a third party, a roommate named Roman, was responsible and that the police investigation was deficient.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as incredible and unreliable, finding that the electronic evidence overwhelmingly established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Omnibus Garofoli application challenging the naming of multiple accused persons in two authorizations to intercept private communications issued in Project Kraken, an investigation into criminal activity by the Deep Waters and Chester Le gangs in Toronto.

The applicants challenged their inclusion as named targets in the first authorization (March 25, 2019) and second authorization (May 21, 2019), as well as the inclusion of Maral Ashoury's telephone number in an earlier Transmission Data Recorder warrant (February 11, 2019).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli standard of review and upheld the authorizations, finding sufficient reliable evidence that the interception of the applicants' communications could assist in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

A.A. was found guilty after trial of numerous offences against his intimate partner, Y.L., including arson endangering life and property, aggravated assault, mischief, uttering a death threat, and voyeurism, along with subsequent breaches of court orders and criminal harassment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the pattern of abuse, the profound impact on the victims, lack of insight, and planned nature of the offences, as well as mitigating factors including no prior criminal record and personal tragedies.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of A.A. contracting COVID-19 in pre-sentence custody and the harsh conditions of detention.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, resulting in a further 34 months to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA sample, weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition were also made.

A show cause hearing on bail for a defendant charged with numerous firearms offences arising from an incident on April 15, 2019.

The defendant was alleged to have fled from police while carrying three loaded handguns, which were abandoned in publicly accessible locations.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defendant proposed a strict release plan with a 24-hour curfew and four proposed sureties.

The court found the defendant met his onus on the primary ground but failed to overcome the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court was particularly concerned with the credibility of the proposed sureties, the defendant's apparent criminal lifestyle, and the absence of evidence of the defendant's commitment to supervision.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic context and expert evidence regarding jail conditions, but concluded that the serious nature of the allegations and likelihood of conviction outweighed the health concerns.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following a party where the complainant consumed a significant amount of alcohol.

The complainant alleged she woke up to a sharp pain and briefly saw the accused at her feet before passing out again.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her extreme intoxication, the dark room, and the brief duration of her observation.

The court also found her credibility compromised by prior inconsistent statements regarding text messages about a threesome and her account of her hospital visit.

The accused was acquitted as the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in death, and blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in bodily harm.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The primary defence theory was that the Crown failed to prove the appellant was driving the van, suggesting the appellant and a passenger could have switched positions.

The appellate court found no misapprehension of evidence and no failure to consider relevant evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, arising from a motor vehicle collision that resulted in a fatality.

The defence brought an abuse of process application alleging three breaches of s. 7 Charter rights: loss of evidence (destruction of the defendant's vehicle), breach of settlement privilege (disclosure of privileged pretrial discussions to the expert witness), and late disclosure of material evidence.

The court found all three breaches established and granted a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed his sentence of eight years imprisonment for sexually assaulting his girlfriend's daughter over a period of approximately one year beginning when the victim was 12 years old.

The appellant sought leave to appeal and argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider his guilty plea, rehabilitative potential, and Aboriginal background under the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in requiring a causal connection between the appellant's Aboriginal background and the offences, the sentence remained fit given the gravity of the crimes and their devastating impact on the victim.

The accused, Richard Sheridan and Chad Noureddine, facing a retrial for second-degree murder, applied for severance from each other.

Noureddine argued prejudice from Sheridan's statement, potential jury misuse, and impact on his duress defence.

Sheridan argued prejudice from edits to his statement and potential prejudicial evidence from Noureddine's duress defence.

The court dismissed both applications, affirming the presumption of joint trials for co-accused in joint criminal ventures.

The court found that limiting instructions and prior edits to Sheridan's statement sufficiently mitigated prejudice, and rejected the argument that juries would be unable to follow complex instructions or that hypothetical evidence warranted severance.

An applicant convicted of two counts of first degree murder sought reconsideration of a prior decision denying his application for appointed counsel under s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued material changes in circumstances had occurred since the initial denial.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated material changes, including: the inmate duty counsel program's refusal to assist; provision of previously missing financial documents to Legal Aid; and evidence addressing concerns about a property foreclosure proceeding.

The court determined both criteria under s. 684(1) were satisfied: it was desirable in the interests of justice to appoint counsel given the complexity and arguability of the appeal, and the applicant lacked sufficient financial means to retain counsel.

Counsel was appointed.