Matthew James Bertram Shumka

The applicants, a police constable and the Toronto Police Service, brought an application for certiorari to quash a trial judge's ruling issuing a subpoena to the constable to testify on a Charter application in a criminal trial.

The applicants argued that a draft statement of claim and information provided to the defence by another officer were protected by settlement privilege and unlawfully disclosed, triggering the third-party records regime.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record in the trial judge's conclusions that settlement privilege did not apply, the disclosure was not unlawful, and the test for issuing a subpoena was met.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing a man and his girlfriend on a public transit bus.

The victims had intervened to stop the accused from abusing his own girlfriend.

The Crown sought a sentence of 16 to 18 years, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the unprovoked attack and the accused's criminal record, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years for attempted murder and 3 years concurrent for aggravated assault, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a fellow passenger 11 times on a public transit bus.

The victim had intervened in an aggressive argument between the accused and his girlfriend.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but denied having the specific intent to kill.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he only intended to hurt the victim, finding that the deliberate, forceful, and persistent nature of the attack on vital areas of the body proved a subjective intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

Sentencing for possession of child pornography arising from 24 videos discovered on a workplace-related USB drive.

The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Friesen, emphasizing the gravity of sexual offences against children and the need for meaningful denunciation and deterrence, while also treating the offender's prolonged childhood sexual abuse, addiction recovery, remorse, insight, guilty plea, and low risk to children as highly mitigating.

Although the court stated that an ordinary first offender possessing similar material would generally attract eight to ten months' custody, it held this was an exceptional case warranting a one-year conditional sentence followed by three years' probation.

The court also imposed forfeiture, SOIRA registration, a DNA order, and a tailored ten-year internet prohibition under s. 161(d), but declined broader s. 161(b) and (c) orders for lack of evidence of risk to children.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple impaired driving and related offences occurring on two separate occasions: November 27, 2017 and September 15, 2018.

On the first occasion, the accused was observed driving erratically on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 340 mg/100ml while subject to a lifetime driving prohibition.

On the second occasion, he was involved in a collision on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 210-220 mg/100ml while on bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months incarceration less pretrial custody, with consecutive sentences on the impaired driving charges and lifetime driving prohibitions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample test results, alleging breaches of Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b), specifically regarding the timing of the roadside screening demand, the timing of breath samples, and the adequacy of rights to counsel advisement in a language he understood.

The court found that the roadside demand was made forthwith, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, and the police took reasonable steps to ensure the accused understood his rights to counsel in Mandarin.

The court admitted the evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats against a young relative.

The information specified the offences occurred between November 17 and 21.

The accused raised an alibi defence for that specific period.

The court found that while the date of an offence is generally not critical, it becomes critical when an alibi defence is raised.

Because the Crown's evidence failed to prove the offence occurred during the specified timeframe and an amendment would prejudice the accused, the charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a minor cousin, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding an alleged assault occurring between November 17-21, 2016.

The accused provided an alibi defence, testifying he was at a friend's residence during the entire specified period.

The critical issue became the date of the alleged offence.

The complainant's evidence, while credible on the substance of the allegations, established that any assault could not have occurred on the dates specified in the information.

The court found that although the date of an offence is generally not material, it became critical when the accused raised an alibi defence.

The Crown failed to prove the offence occurred within the timeframe alleged, and no amendment to the information was sought.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation over 80 following an incident on September 28, 2016.

A civilian witness reported erratic driving to police.

The accused was stopped at his residence and arrested.

Breath tests conducted approximately 90 minutes after the incident showed readings of 135 mgs and 131 mgs.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, determined that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the evidence of impaired driving and the breath test results exceeding the legal limit.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following a fatal shooting in a barbershop.

The Crown alleged the accused aided or abetted the deceased in confronting the shooter, relying entirely on circumstantial evidence of their interactions before the incident.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court granted the application, finding no evidence beyond speculation that the accused knew the deceased had a loaded handgun or that he possessed the requisite knowledge and intent for the unlawful act.

Jermaine Smith was tried without a jury on two counts of robbery, two counts of disguise with intent, and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance.

A statement given to police was ruled inadmissible.

The Crown relied on the doctrine of recent possession to identify Smith as one of the robbers, based on his girlfriend redeeming stolen lottery tickets given to her by Smith.

The court found Smith was in possession of the recently stolen tickets but deemed it unsafe to infer he was one of the robbers due to the easily transferable nature of the goods, lack of other corroborating evidence, and inconsistencies in witness descriptions.

Smith was found not guilty of the robbery and disguise charges but guilty of failing to comply with a recognizance, which he conceded.

The accused, Jermaine Smith, faced charges including robbery.

During his judge-alone trial, the Crown sought to admit a statement Smith gave to police.

The defence challenged its admissibility, arguing it was not voluntary due to an alleged inducement by Detective Stinson, who purportedly threatened to charge Smith's girlfriend and involve the Children's Aid Society if Smith did not confess.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness of the statement, primarily due to the police's failure to audio or video record a critical "pre-interview" with Smith, despite recording facilities being available.

Consequently, the statement was ruled inadmissible.

The accused was charged with over 80 care or control and impaired care or control.

Police arrested the accused for possession of stolen property and subsequently made a breathalyzer demand based on observations of an odour of alcohol and allegedly slurred speech.

The defence brought a Charter application to exclude the breath sample results, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the demand.

The court found that the observations of alcohol odour and slurred speech were insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the breathalyzer demand, constituting a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the seriousness of the breach and deprivation of liberty outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.