Matthew Steven Bloch

Noah Spencer was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm with an overcapacity magazine while subject to a weapons prohibition, and possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and crack cocaine for trafficking.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought a one-year conditional sentence.

The judge balanced aggravating factors, including the dangerous combination of drugs and firearms and breach of a weapons prohibition, against mitigating factors such as Spencer’s youth, disadvantaged upbringing, systemic racism, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years less pre-sentence custody, with consecutive sentences for firearms, CDSA, and prohibition offences, resulting in a net sentence of just over 20 months to serve, followed by probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Linda Gibbons was charged with mischief under section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code for picketing an abortion clinic.

The court found that her actions, which involved communicating information and attempting to dissuade patients, did not constitute criminal mischief.

The court applied the defence under section 430(7) of the Criminal Code, which protects acts done for the purpose of communicating information, even if the intended result is to interfere with property use.

The clinic's operations continued, albeit with inconvenience, and there was no physical obstruction or harassment.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, Noah Spencer, was charged with five firearms offences and three drug trafficking offences.

He brought a Charter application (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) seeking exclusion of evidence, alleging unlawful detention, search, and racial profiling by police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police acted lawfully based on reasonable suspicion and officer safety concerns, and explicitly rejecting claims of racial profiling.

The court found Spencer guilty of all firearms and drug trafficking charges, concluding he was in physical possession of the items and engaged in a joint venture with a co-accused.

Shahim Shokouh, convicted of child pornography offenses, applied for an exemption from Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration, an obligation declared unconstitutional but suspended by the Supreme Court in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The court granted the exemption, finding that Mr. Shokouh was at a low risk to reoffend based on an individualized risk assessment, and therefore, requiring his registration would be overbroad and would not further the SOIRA's purpose.

Granting the individual remedy would not undermine the Supreme Court's purpose for suspending the declaration of invalidity.

Kevonne Marshall pleaded guilty to perjury after falsely testifying in a Superior Court home invasion trial to exonerate the accused, Jacob Owusu-Sarpong, by claiming he committed the crime.

The court found his testimony was prearranged and deliberate, but did not affect the trial's outcome as the original accused was convicted.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of perjury, the pre-planned nature of the lie, and the implication of an innocent person (Marshall himself).

Mitigating factors included Marshall's youth (20 years old), guilty plea, challenging personal background (learning disability, ADHD, behavioural issues, limited education, family violence), severe cognitive limitations, difficult pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns, asthma), and the negative impact of his social environment (Jane-Finch neighbourhood, anti-Black racism).

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, ultimately imposing a sentence of 406 days pre-sentence custody (enhanced to 609 days/21 months) plus 1 day in jail, followed by 2 years of probation with specific conditions aimed at rehabilitation.

A DNA order was also issued.

The accused, Shahim Shokouh, was found guilty of accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including active sharing and seeking more material, and mitigating factors such as his youth (19 at the time of offenses), first offender status, voluntary participation in therapy, expressed remorse, low risk of reoffending, and strong family support.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence proposed 90 days intermittent.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment followed by 3 years of probation, along with ancillary orders including DNA sample, forfeiture of devices, and a 10-year prohibition order regarding contact with persons under 16 and certain employment/volunteer capacities, and internet use conditions.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle struck multiple objects and a bus, killing his passenger.

The defence argued that the accused was experiencing a seizure at the time of the collision, rendering his actions involuntary and negating the requisite mens rea.

The Crown contended that the accused was conscious and driving recklessly, or alternatively, that his decision to drive despite a history of possible seizures constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was experiencing a seizure during the erratic driving.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's decision to drive was not a marked departure from the standard of care, as he had previously been advised by a neurologist that he could continue driving.

The accused was acquitted.

Shahim Shokouh, charged with child pornography offences, brought two pre-trial Charter applications: one alleging a violation of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)) and another alleging an unreasonable search or seizure (s. 8).

The court dismissed both applications.

It found no re-triggering of the right to counsel upon arrest as there was no significant change in legal jeopardy, and police acted in good faith.

Even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) due to the minor nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused's rights, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court also upheld the validity of the production order (s. 487.014 Criminal Code) and search warrant (s. 487(1)(b) Criminal Code), finding sufficient grounds and rejecting arguments of overbreadth regarding electronic devices.

The accused was tried on charges of accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography arising from material found on computers in his bedroom and from Kik chats recovered through an iPhone backup.

The court relied on the accused's police admissions, forensic computer evidence, and the contents of the recovered chat sessions to distinguish accessing from possession and to assess the circumstantial case on distribution.

Applying Villaroman and W.(D.), the court held that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was the local user who transmitted offending images in the Kik chats.

The Crown proved all three offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Jevanny Walters, Collin Walters, and Raymond Ellis, were charged with unlawful confinement and robbery stemming from two separate incidents at a gaming house.

Jevanny Walters and Raymond Ellis were charged in connection with the first robbery, and all three were charged in relation to the second.

The Crown conceded that unlawful confinement was not established for the second robbery.

The primary issue was the identification of the perpetrators, relying on surveillance footage, cell phone records, and similar act evidence.

The court found Jevanny Walters guilty on all remaining counts (1, 2, and 4) and Collin Walters guilty on Count 4.

Raymond Ellis was acquitted on all counts (1, 2, and 4), as the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his possession and use of a key cell phone at the time of the robberies, despite circumstantial evidence.

J.L. was arrested and detained for an indecent act and probation breach.

He sought a review of his continuing detention under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court found his continued detention was no longer justified given the pre-trial custody already served, the anticipated length of time to bring the matter to trial, and a community-based release plan arranged by amicus curiae.

Despite a criminal record including sexual assault and multiple indecent acts, and a history of non-compliance, the court emphasized that further incarceration would not provide enduring public protection where reliable community supports were available to address the root causes of his offending behavior.

J.L. was released on his own recognizance with specific conditions related to shelter, mental health support, and restrictions on proximity to children.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm under section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The victim suffered severe facial injuries requiring major reconstructive surgery including multiple fractures and orbital floor reconstruction.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years of probation, a section 110 weapons prohibition for ten years, a DNA order, and a $100 victim fine surcharge.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked nature of the assault, the accused's remorse, his completion of anger management counselling, his stable employment, and his prior conditional discharges.

The offender was found guilty of bookmaking for the benefit of a criminal organization known as Platinum Sports Book.

The court found the offender held a leadership or management role in the organization, directing other agents.

The Crown sought up to 2 years less a day, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or fine.

The court weighed the aggravating factor of committing an offence for a criminal organization against mitigating factors including a dated criminal record and no evidence of direct profit.

The offender was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of statements he made to police following his arrest.

The accused, who was self-represented with the assistance of amicus curiae, argued that his statements were involuntary due to his mental illness, vulnerability, and police inducements involving cigarettes.

The court found that the accused had an operating mind, understood his rights, and made a conscious decision to speak to police.

The court concluded that the police conduct was professional, there were no oppressive circumstances or impermissible inducements, and the statements were proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the Crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused provided breath samples directly into an approved instrument, which is a precondition to relying on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on the Breathalyzer Printout and circumstantial evidence, but the court found that neither was sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof.

The court acquitted the accused.

The applicant was stopped by police in a park while they were investigating a robbery.

The police claimed the applicant acted nervously and had a heavy pocket, leading them to believe he had a gun.

A struggle ensued, during which the applicant was beaten by multiple officers, and a handgun was found in his pocket.

The court found the officers' evidence to be contradictory and unreliable, concluding they had no reasonable grounds for the arrest or search.

The court held that the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the applicant's rights.

The accused brought a defence application seeking a stay of proceedings after being subjected to repeated Level 3 strip searches each time he left the courtroom while permitted to sit at counsel table during his jury trial.

The court found the searches were conducted pursuant to an improper practice and were not supported by individualized reasonable grounds.

The repeated searches constituted serious breaches of the accused’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.

The court held that routine strip searches cannot be justified merely because an in‑custody accused is seated at counsel table and emphasized the extreme intrusiveness of such searches.

Although a stay of proceedings was initially ordered to prevent ongoing Charter violations, the order was suspended when court security agreed to alter the seating arrangement and cease the searches.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon (a coffee mug) for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, arising from an incident at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on November 2, 2012.

The central issue was self-defence.

The court determined that the old self-defence provisions under the Criminal Code (sections 34 and 37) applied rather than the new provisions introduced by Bill C-26 on March 11, 2013, finding that the new law was substantive and therefore prospective only.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding self-defence and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with driving over 80 and required a Tigrigna interpreter for trial.

A voir dire was held to determine whether a conditionally accredited interpreter was qualified to provide interpretation services.

The court found that the interpreter, despite being bilingual and having seven years of court experience, was not qualified to interpret for the trial based on his performance on the Ministry of the Attorney General's accreditation test.

The court emphasized that bilingualism alone does not equate to interpretation competence and that objectively valid skills testing is the most reliable way to assess interpreter qualifications for complex trials.

During a second degree murder jury trial, the defence applied for an inquiry under s. 644 of the Criminal Code to determine whether a juror should be discharged due to alleged conduct suggesting partiality, including turning away during the accused’s testimony and making gestures during closing submissions.

The court held that the alleged behaviour did not meet the high threshold required to justify an inquiry into a juror’s fitness.

Juror conduct must raise a serious issue regarding the ability to perform duties before the court interferes with jury secrecy.

The court emphasized that jurors may form provisional views during trial provided they remain open to deliberation.

The application for an inquiry and the related request for a mistrial were dismissed.