Matt Fisico

The accused, Fred Curreri and Linda Lawlor, were charged with fraud over $5,000 against the elder Fred Curreri, Fred Curreri's father.

The fraud involved the fraudulent transfer and mortgaging of eight properties owned by the elder Fred Curreri.

The court found Fred Curreri guilty of fraud over $5,000 for his direct involvement in the fraudulent schemes, including transferring and mortgaging his father's properties and dispersing mortgage funds without consent, and alternatively, found him wilfully blind.

Linda Lawlor was found guilty of fraud over $5,000 for fraudulently transferring one specific property (1246 St. Clair) without authorization, but not for another property (28 Ruden) due to insufficient proof of her direct involvement in the transfer or subjective appreciation of its wrongfulness.

The accused, Phillip Joseph (P.J.), was convicted of second-degree murder and faced a sentencing hearing to determine whether an adult or youth sentence was appropriate.

P.J. was 17 at the time of the offence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused's role, age, maturity, mental disorders (Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder), and progress in custody.

Despite some positive developments in custody, the court found that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable or ensure public protection and rehabilitation, given the severity of the crime and the uncertainty of treatment success.

In a murder trial involving a young person, the defence brought a Scopelliti motion seeking to introduce images recovered from the deceased’s cellphone memory card to suggest a violent disposition and support a claim of self‑defence.

The proposed evidence consisted of photographs of firearms, knives, cash, marijuana, and aggressive slogans whose origin and authorship were unknown.

The court applied the governing principles from Scopelliti and subsequent authorities and concluded that the images had minimal probative value and did not demonstrate prior acts of violence or a disposition to carry weapons.

Any limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect, risk of improper reasoning about the deceased’s character, and the potential to distract the jury with collateral issues.

The evidence was therefore ruled inadmissible.

The accused, a young person charged with first degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement on a voir dire.

The court considered whether the police were required to comply with s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and whether the statement was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The court held that s. 146 was not triggered because the accused was neither arrested nor detained and the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe he had committed the offence at the time of the interview.

The interview circumstances did not involve inducements, oppression, lack of an operating mind, or improper trickery, and the rudimentary cautions given were sufficient in the circumstances.

The Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was ruled admissible at trial.