Mary Elizabeth Cremer

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of prior extrinsic misconduct by the accused against his former girlfriend in a trial for second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to motive, animus, identity, and intent, showing the accused's jealousy after the deceased intervened in a dispute.

The court applied the Handy framework and ruled that the probative value of the prior assaults and threats outweighed their prejudicial effect, though graphic details of one assault were excluded to prevent impermissible propensity reasoning.

The application was partially granted.

The Crown brought an application to admit three statements made by the accused to police and to admit blood-stained clothes seized without a warrant.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, argued his Charter rights were violated and the statements were involuntary.

The court found the first two statements were made when the accused was considered a witness, not a suspect, and were voluntary.

The video statement was also found voluntary, with no threats, inducements, or Charter breaches.

The warrantless seizure of the clothes was deemed reasonable due to exigent circumstances, as the clothes could have been lost or destroyed.

The statements and clothes were ruled admissible.

Sentencing for online child luring, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, and breach of a prior prohibition order involving a 15-year-old complainant.

Applying the framework in R. v. Friesen, the court treated the offender's grooming conduct, repeated sexual exploitation of adolescent males, cognate criminal record, serial breaches of court orders, and high assessed risk of reoffending as major aggravating factors.

The guilty plea carried reduced weight because the Crown case was particularly strong, and the court found the offender's remorse hollow in the absence of genuine insight into his pedophilic interests.

An eight-year concurrent penitentiary sentence was imposed, less 49 months' credit for pretrial custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, non-communication, s. 161, and lifetime SOIRA orders.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision asserting jurisdiction over s. 810 Criminal Code peace bond applications based on alleged misconduct in Greece, and alternatively, for insufficient particularization of the location of the alleged misconduct.

The court dismissed the applications, holding that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to issue s. 810 peace bonds to prevent future harm in Canada, even if the underlying conduct occurred abroad, as the purpose is preventive, not punitive.

The court also found that the particulars provided were sufficient for fairness in a peace bond context, distinguishing it from criminal prosecutions.

This criminal trial concerned Samuel Yzraiib, charged with aggravated assault and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, stemming from a fight at a mall.

The court considered video evidence, witness testimony, and forensic findings, which confirmed Yzraiib's involvement and possession of a knife.

The defence argued self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, contending that Yzraiib was defending himself against a larger assailant and other attackers.

The court found that Yzraiib's actions, including the use of a knife, were not unreasonable given the circumstances.

Due to the absence of clear evidence regarding the intent behind obtaining the knife and the incomplete video footage, the court concluded there was reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Following a dispute outside a bar, the accused retrieved a gun and fired it towards a group, striking an innocent bystander.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the serious nature of gun violence in a public place.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 10 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, leaving six years to serve.

The defendant, Paul Weeden, was charged with aggravated assault and gun-related offences stemming from a shooting incident outside a Toronto club.

The central issue at trial was the identification of Weeden as the shooter.

The Crown relied on surveillance images, clothing evidence, a rented Dodge Dart, and intercepted communications.

The court found significant similarities between Weeden and the man in surveillance footage and found the intercepted communications to be powerful circumstantial evidence.

Despite some frailties in the Crown's case, the court concluded that the totality of the evidence established Weeden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Paul Weeden, sought to exclude evidence obtained by police, arguing violations of his s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Police entered and cleared Weeden's apartment without a warrant, kicked in a locked bedroom door, and remained inside to "freeze" the apartment while awaiting a search warrant.

The court found that exigent circumstances justified the initial entry and the forced entry into the bedroom, and that no search occurred before the warrant.

However, the court determined that police violated Weeden's s. 8 rights by remaining inside the apartment after it was cleared, as exigent circumstances no longer existed.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court found the Charter breach was committed in good faith, the impact on Weeden's privacy was significant but mitigated by the limited nature of the intrusion, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits, particularly for drug-related charges, favored inclusion.

Ultimately, the evidence was deemed admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused brought applications to stay their charges of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b).

The total delay was estimated at 45 to 46 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court dismissed the applications, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' due to multiple accused, voluminous disclosure from three jurisdictions, and numerous pre-trial applications.

The court also found the delay reasonable under the transitional framework for cases instituted pre-Jordan.

The accused, Daniel Stojanovski and Darko Stojanovski, were found guilty by a jury of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The charges stemmed from a cold-blooded shooting in a residential neighbourhood that left the victim, Nassundu Williams, an incomplete quadriplegic.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 15 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of loaded handguns in a populated area and the catastrophic harm to the victim, and mitigating factors such as Darko Stojanovski being a first offender and both accused having family support and taking rehabilitative steps during pre-sentence detention.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention, including additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions, was granted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The accused, a former financial planner, was convicted of defrauding 41 victims of approximately $10 million through a Ponzi scheme over a 2.5-year period.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the large scale of the fraud, breach of trust, and devastating impact on vulnerable victims, with no mitigating factors.

The accused was sentenced to the maximum 14 years' imprisonment, less 10 years' pre-sentence custody credit (including enhanced credit for harsh conditions).

The court also ordered restitution of $10,887,885 and a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

Three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a botched home invasion robbery targeting a drug dealer.

The offenders planned to use extreme violence, bringing weapons and gasoline, but mistakenly encountered the target's brother, who was stabbed to death by one of the offenders.

The court found the offence to be an aggravated manslaughter due to the high degree of planning, the home invasion context, and the extreme violence intended.

The court sentenced the stabber to 13 years and the other two offenders to 11 years, less credit for pre-trial custody.

Requests for enhanced credit due to lockdown conditions were denied for lack of evidence of detrimental impact.

The Crown applied to have the respondent designated as a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following his convictions for sexual assault, fraudulent personation, and multiple breaches of a long-term supervision order.

The respondent conceded that he met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation but argued for a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, relying on his recently discovered Aboriginal heritage and the availability of culturally sensitive programming.

The court found that the respondent's Aboriginal heritage did not impact his moral blameworthiness and that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public given his high risk to reoffend, his history of deception, and his poor response to past treatment.

The respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He sought to vacate a detention order based on a new supervision plan involving two sureties and a radio frequency ankle bracelet.

The court applied the Palmer test for new evidence and found that the proposed plan did not represent a material change in circumstances, as the sureties would leave the accused unsupervised during work hours and the ankle bracelet would not prevent re-offending.

The court concluded that detention remained justified on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for a section 487 Criminal Code search warrant and a section 487.02 assistance order to compel the accused to provide passcodes or PIN codes to unlock his cell phone.

The accused opposed the assistance order.

The court found that while section 487.02 may apply to accused persons, the proposed assistance order violated the accused's section 7 Charter rights, specifically the principle against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

The court declined to issue the assistance order, finding that use immunity did not adequately address the compelled active participation of the accused in his own prosecution.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.

Kenneth Johnson was convicted of manslaughter after being acquitted of second-degree murder.

The sentencing decision addresses the circumstances of the assault on his roommate, Richard Skupien, which resulted in Skupien's death from a ruptured spleen and rib fractures.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the attack on a vulnerable individual in his home, and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the offender's remorse, strong family support, and particularly harsh pre-trial custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The court imposed an eight-year sentence, reduced to two years and four months after applying credit for pre-trial custody and the onerous conditions.

During a murder trial, the defence sought to file their expert pathologist's report as a numbered exhibit, which the Crown opposed.

The report detailed the pathologist's critique of the Crown's expert and offered opinions on the timing of injuries, which could support the defence's theory.

The court denied the request, citing the convention against filing expert reports as exhibits, concerns about them acting as prior consistent statements, and the risk of overemphasizing expert evidence without the full context of cross-examination.

The judge also noted the imprecision of the scientific methods for aging injuries and the potential for misuse if the report was admitted without express caveats.

Andre Callaghan was found guilty of 15 counts, including discharging a prohibited firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a high-capacity magazine, possession of a firearm with a removed serial number, careless storage, possession of firearms/devices while prohibited, dangerous driving, and failing to stop for police.

Counts 2, 5, and 7 were stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive criminal record (including prior gun and drug offenses, and breaches of prohibition orders), lack of remorse, and high-risk lifestyle.

Mitigating factors included family support, educational achievements in custody, and employment history.

The court declined enhanced credit for pre-trial custody conditions due to insufficient evidence of impact.

A global sentence of ten years was imposed, reduced to six years after credit for pre-trial custody, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and a two-year driving prohibition.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit preliminary hearing testimony of a witness, Mr. Nassirnia, as substantive evidence under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (KGB application).

Mr. Nassirnia could no longer recall incidents he testified about at the preliminary hearing.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the preliminary hearing evidence lacked sufficient reliability due to the witness's apparent lack of genuine recollection, having repeatedly refreshed his memory from a police statement.

The court found that the necessity requirement was met and that sufficient indicia of reliability were present, particularly the oath and opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, and the witness's availability for cross-examination at trial.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, with a direction that Crown counsel should first attempt to refresh the witness's memory with his police statement at trial.