Mark Rieger

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an incident where the victim was shot and killed.

The accused was not the shooter but participated in a plan to confront the victim to recover stolen items, knowing a firearm was present.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6 to 8 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 4 years.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's background, youth, and rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence of 66 months' imprisonment, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a party in a fatal shooting that occurred during an attempt to recover stolen property.

The 19-year-old accused was not the shooter but participated in the physical altercation knowing an associate was armed.

The court sentenced the accused to four years' imprisonment (leaving two years to serve after pre-sentence credit) and a three-year probation term, emphasizing his youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and other charges in 2023, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and the accused jointly sought an absolute discharge, which the Crown ultimately supported.

The Board found that the accused, who is stable in supervised housing, medication compliant, and has improved insight, no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

An absolute discharge was ordered.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted David Hunte-Green of committing an indecent act in a public place and breaching probation.

The accused was found to have masturbated under his clothes in a public elevator in front of a witness, Ms. Ginsberg, without exposing his genitals.

The court carefully analyzed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused masturbated and whether such conduct constituted an indecent act under Canadian law.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's test for indecency from R. v. Labaye, the court found that the conduct caused harm to the victim's autonomy and safety, and was incompatible with the proper functioning of society, despite the absence of genital exposure.

The accused was also found guilty of breaching probation orders.

The court considered an application by Kenneth Hill to stay his charges for delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, following his conviction for aggravated assault and related offences.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the pre-verdict delay was attributable to the defence, as Mr. Hill failed to appear for his trial after being inadvertently released from custody.

The post-verdict delay, related to a long-term offender application, was found to be reasonable and largely an exceptional circumstance, with only a short period of undue delay that did not breach the Charter ceiling.

O'Shane Mitchell pleaded guilty to three counts of reckless discharge of a firearm and one count of possession of a loaded firearm.

The charges arose from a shooting incident where Mitchell, acting in self-defence against one aggressor who died, recklessly injured three other individuals.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a loaded firearm in an enclosed space, injuries to multiple victims, and the unrecovered firearm.

Mitigating factors included Mitchell's youth, difficult upbringing in a violent, racialized community, early guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking).

The court also considered the impact of anti-Black racism on the offender's background.

The judge imposed a global sentence of six years' imprisonment, reduced from an initial inclination of seven years due to the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

With credit for 735 days (enhanced to 3 years), Mitchell was sentenced to serve a further three years.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving and failing to stop for police after a vehicle registered to him fled from officers following a nearby shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage showing the accused driving a vehicle away from the shooting scene shortly before the police pursuit.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidentiary gaps, including unknown timelines and the possibility of a driver switch, left room for reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The two accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 381 grams of cocaine hidden behind a plastic panel in the center console of the vehicle they were in.

The police had stopped the vehicle to arrest the passenger on outstanding warrants and conducted a search incident to arrest.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications, finding the arrest and search lawful.

At trial, the court found the passenger guilty based on circumstantial evidence establishing his knowledge and control of the drugs.

The driver was acquitted, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about the hidden cocaine.

The accused, Chiduben Anthony Okeke, was charged with Aggravated Assault and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance.

Both the Crown and Defence jointly sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under sections 16 and 672.34 of the Criminal Code.

Two forensic psychiatrists provided reports concluding that the accused suffered from schizophrenia with paranoid and somatic delusions and auditory hallucinations at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the joint recommendation, finding the accused NCR for both charges, and issued a DNA order.

The judgment also highlighted the severe impact on the victim, PC Andrew Varao, and raised concerns about the lack of adequate supervision for mentally ill individuals released on bail.

The applicant, who suffers from mental illness and auditory hallucinations, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault of a police officer.

He presented a new bail plan with a surety.

The court found that while the applicant's dangerousness is linked to his mental illness, the proposed plan did not provide adequate supervision to ensure he would remain medicated and stable.

The application was dismissed under the secondary ground.

The applicant, an Aboriginal man with a lengthy criminal record and mental health issues, sought a review of his detention order under ss. 520 and 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the justice of the peace erred in rejecting a proposed surety's credibility based on unproven information.

Conducting a de novo review, the court provided a detailed analysis of the newly enacted s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code, which requires particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal and vulnerable accused.

Applying these principles contextually to the applicant's history of breaches and the proposed release plan, the court concluded that detention was not necessary on the secondary or tertiary grounds and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions, including electronic monitoring.

The accused, Vally Mawanga, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant, O.T., reported a memory blackout during which the alleged assault occurred, with only fragmented recollections.

The accused admitted to sexual intercourse but testified it was consensual, detailing a progression of interaction from meeting at Caribana to sexual activity at his apartment.

The court found the complainant's recollection unreliable due to inconsistencies and memory gaps, and accepted the accused's internally consistent and plausible account.

The Crown failed to prove lack of consent or lack of capacity to consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 424 grams of cocaine and 28 grams of crack cocaine in his bedroom.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, medical issues, and restrictive bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment.

The defendant, Dexter Griffith, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights.

The application challenged the validity of the information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant, arguing there were no reasonable grounds to believe Griffith resided at the searched premises, that he committed the alleged drug trafficking offences, or that evidence would be found there.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable and objective grounds for the search warrant, and that there were no material omissions or misrepresentations in the ITO.

Even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with three counts of failing to comply with probation orders under s.733.1 and one count of failing to comply with a SOIRA order under s.490.031.

The Crown and defence agreed that counts 3 and 4 should be dismissed.

The defence argued that the Crown must prove the failures to report were wilful and that the accused's mental health difficulties provided a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The court found that s.733.1 does not require proof of wilfulness and that the evidence did not establish a reasonable excuse.

The court convicted on counts 1 and 2 and dismissed counts 3 and 4.

The accused was charged with two counts of Break & Enter with Intent, three counts of Mischief under $5000, three counts of Theft under $5000, and two counts of Fail to Comply with Probation.

The determinative issue was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from two police officers who had prior contact with the accused and identified him from surveillance video.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this recognition evidence.

The court found that both officers were sufficiently familiar with the accused through multiple prior encounters and arrests, placing them in a better position than the court to identify the accused in the video.

The recognition evidence was admitted as admissible at trial.

The accused, charged with criminal harassment, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The charge arose from an incident where the accused allegedly followed and watched a 13-year-old girl on her way to school, having previously followed her and a friend weeks earlier.

The court amended the indictment to conform to the evidence regarding the date of the offence.

The court dismissed the motion for a directed verdict, finding that there was sufficient evidence of 'watching' under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

During a criminal trial, the Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow a witness to testify via Skype.

The witness was unable to attend court due to a high-risk pregnancy.

The defence objected, arguing the anticipated evidence was vague and bordered on bad character evidence.

The court found the evidence relevant to the issue of opportunity and held that trial fairness would not be undermined by the use of technology.

The application was granted, permitting the witness to testify remotely.

The Crown brought a motion to admit a 911 call placed by a complainant into evidence for the truth of its contents, arguing it fell under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule or the principled approach.

The court found the call inherently reliable but excluded it because its admission was not necessary, as the complainant was available to testify and had given a police statement containing the same facts.

The court also noted the recording's highly emotional tone would be overly prejudicial to the accused.

The accused, charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and criminal harassment involving six different complainants, applied to sever counts 7 and 8 from the indictment.

The Crown applied to admit similar act evidence across the counts to assist in identifying the perpetrator.

The court held that the similar act evidence application was premature and should be decided during the trial.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding a strong factual nexus between the incidents and concluding that the benefits of a single trial outweighed the risk of prejudice to the accused.