Mary Lou Armour

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after stabbing the victim with a kitchen knife during an alcohol-fueled altercation.

He also pled guilty to multiple breaches of his recognizance.

The court weighed the unprovoked nature of the attack and the use of a concealed weapon against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and his efforts to address his severe alcohol addiction.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months imprisonment, reduced to 18.5 months after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

A youth was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, obstruction of justice, personation, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and two counts of failing to comply with a youth sentence.

The Crown conceded that attempted murder could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The central issues were whether the Crown proved the identity of the assailant and whether aggravated assault was an included offence.

The incident occurred at a semi-formal high school party where the accused stabbed the victim following a confrontation in a washroom.

The court found the Crown proved the accused was the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt based on credible witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, but convicted on the included offence of aggravated assault rather than attempted murder.

The Crown applied for leave to cross-examine their own witness on two prior inconsistent statements made to police.

The witness, the wife of the accused, had made statements on the night of the incident and again three days later under solemn affirmation.

The defence opposed the application, citing concerns about the reliability of the statements due to the witness's emotional state, lack of sleep, language barriers, and alleged compulsion.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the statutory criteria under s.9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act were met and that the ends of justice were best served by permitting cross-examination.

Thirty‑three accused sought exclusion of wiretap evidence arising from “Project Marvel,” a large police investigation into shootings, robbery, and organized gang activity in Toronto.

The applicants argued the authorizations violated s. 8 of the Charter because the police failed to establish “investigative necessity” under s. 186(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and improperly named certain individuals as “known persons” under s. 185(1)(e).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli review standard and held the authorizing judge had a reasonable basis to conclude investigative necessity existed despite alternative investigative techniques such as cell‑phone analysis.

The court further held that the challenged individuals were properly named as targets because interception of their communications could assist the investigation and the statutory threshold is low.

A separate sub‑facial challenge relating to the search of a backyard shed and the curtilage doctrine was also rejected.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants on the basis that the information presented to the issuing justice was insufficient.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and theft related to a series of automobile thefts from driveways and garages in the Greater Toronto Area.

Police obtained a general warrant for covert entry into a storage locker and a subsequent search warrant.

The court examined the affidavit supporting the warrants and found that despite numerous unsupported opinions and speculative statements by the affiant, there remained sufficient factual basis for the issuing justice to have granted the warrants.

The application was dismissed.