Maureen D. Forestell

The court sentenced Emmanuel Kitenge, who pled guilty to manslaughter and failing to stop for police, for his role as a getaway driver in a fatal shooting.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kitenge’s youth, lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, and significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less one day for manslaughter (with credit for pre-sentence custody), a concurrent nine-month sentence for failing to stop for police, probation, and ancillary orders.

Jahmel Burke pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking in fentanyl, cocaine, and other controlled substances, as well as possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, the range of sentences for similar offences, and imposed a global sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts, and credit for pre-sentence custody.

The decision discusses the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Christopher Mitchell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the shooting death of John Wheeler.

The sentencing was adjourned to allow for the preparation of records and a psychological report.

At the sentencing hearing, the Crown and defence jointly recommended a parole ineligibility period of 18 years.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and the background and mental health of Mr. Mitchell.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a life sentence with 18 years of parole ineligibility, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court sentenced Spiro Tsakopoulos for manslaughter after a guilty plea, following the shooting death of Bryson Murle.

The sentencing reasons review the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range for manslaughter with a firearm and imposed a 10-year sentence before credit for pre-sentence custody, with appropriate statutory orders.

The Attorney General applied for restraint and management orders under the Criminal Code for cryptocurrency held by Binance, alleged to be offence-related property from a fraud.

Binance opposed the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the Unifund test for prescriptive legislative jurisdiction applied and required assessing the reliability of the cryptocurrency tracing.

The court held that the Unifund test does not apply because the legislation explicitly authorizes extraterritorial reach and the orders involve enforcement rather than prescriptive jurisdiction.

Instead, the Brecknell test applies.

Consequently, the reliability of the cryptocurrency tracing was deemed irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.

The court considered whether Devret Clarke, who shot and killed Gars-Ara Kourjakian, was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

The evidence established that Clarke suffered from schizophrenia and was actively psychotic at the time of the offence.

The main issue was whether his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was morally wrong.

After reviewing the evidence, including psychiatric opinions and Clarke’s own testimony, the court found that Clarke’s delusions led him to believe his actions were justified both by his own moral code and by societal norms, if society understood his experiences.

The court concluded that Clarke was NCR.

This sentencing decision addresses whether strip searches of the accused in pre-sentence custody breached section 8 of the Charter and, if not, whether the frequency and manner of those searches should mitigate sentence.

The court finds no Charter breach but considers the conditions as mitigating.

The court also reviews the appropriate sentencing range for serious gun-related offences, ultimately imposing a nine-year sentence, below the Crown’s request, in light of mitigating factors including the accused’s background, lack of record, and harsh pretrial conditions.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

This decision addresses the procedure for determining solicitor-client privilege over documents seized during the execution of search warrants at the offices of Romspen Investment Corporation and an employee’s residence.

The court considered whether the applicant must provide particulars of the allegations, whether an independent third-party forensic analyst should be appointed to handle electronic documents, and whether amicus curiae should be appointed.

The court declined to order particulars, ordered the appointment of a third-party analyst to copy electronic documents, and deferred the decision on appointing amicus curiae.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting solicitor-client privilege and outlines the context-specific procedures courts may adopt.

Richard Samuels and Tafari Minott pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the shooting death of Osman Bangura.

The Crown sought eight-year sentences, while defence counsel requested six years.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the use and disposal of illegal firearms and Samuels' youth record, and mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, self-defence concerns (though disproportionate force was used), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a six-year sentence on both offenders, with credit for time served, resulting in remaining sentences of approximately 2 years 9.5 months for Samuels and 3 years 8.5 months for Minott.

Both were also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

Karson Benjamin, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences including trafficking 27 firearms, 12 overcapacity magazines, 2 selector switches, over half a kilogram of fentanyl, and cocaine.

He was also found with a loaded handgun and proceeds of crime upon arrest.

The Crown sought a 15-year global sentence, while the defence argued for less than 10 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of drugs and firearms, the combination of guns and drugs, and Benjamin's integral role, attenuated by his intellectual limitations.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of criminal record, difficult background, early guilty pleas, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Applying principles of proportionality, parity, deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public, rehabilitation, and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years, with specific counts running concurrently or consecutively, and credited 1458 days for pre-sentence custody.

Tenzin Norbu was charged with first-degree murder.

The trial proceeded without a jury, with the accused admitting to causing the victim's death by pouring lighter fluid and igniting it.

The sole issue was whether Norbu was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that Norbu suffered from schizophrenia and was experiencing active psychosis at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court found Norbu NCR and remanded him to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

T.P., a young person, sought a review of his youth sentence of 17 months secure custody and 8 months 25 days community supervision for five bank robberies.

The court, pursuant to s. 94(19) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, considered T.P.'s progress in custody, including his positive behaviour, educational pursuits, and efforts towards rehabilitation, despite being transferred to an adult facility where rehabilitative programming was limited.

The court found that T.P. met the burden to show sufficient change to justify a modification of his sentence, concluding that further programming available in the community would better serve his rehabilitation and the long-term protection of society.

The court ordered T.P.'s release from custody to conditional supervision with strict conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for the 1983 killings of two women.

The murders remained unsolved for decades until genetic genealogy identified the offender.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years.

The court considered the extreme gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the brutal nature of the killings, alongside Gladue factors and the offender's guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 21 years.

Sufyan Jogiyat pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence proposed 4 years.

The court sentenced Mr. Jogiyat to 4 years and 4 months for aggravated assault and 18 months consecutive for drug trafficking, resulting in a global sentence of 5 years and 10 months.

The judge also ruled on the admissibility of aggravating evidence regarding prior trafficking, excluding it as it was not sufficiently material and risked unduly prolonging the hearing.

The decision considered the principles of sentencing, aggravating factors (home invasion, commercial drug operation), and mitigating factors (guilty pleas, remorse, youth, first offender status, pre-sentence custody conditions).

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping after playing a minimal role in the confinement of an international student for ransom.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's minimal participation, her status as a first offender, her history of trauma, and her diagnoses including Borderline Personality Disorder.

Emphasizing proportionality and rehabilitation, the court imposed a 22-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

Jevaughn Myers pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The victim, an international student, was kidnapped for ransom and held for 13 days.

The Crown sought 16 years, while the defence proposed 8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors (victim impact, Myers' central role) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, mental health, family support, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions).

Applying sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, comprising 9 years for kidnapping and 1 year consecutive for administering a substance, after accounting for pre-sentence custody.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

Kristopher Matthews pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 23-28 years and a s. 743.6 order for delayed parole eligibility.

Defence sought 10-13 years global and opposed the s. 743.6 order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years (13 years for kidnapping, 2 years consecutive for administering the drug), giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied the s. 743.6 order, finding that the danger presented by the offender did not warrant such an exceptional measure.

This decision concerns an annual sentence review under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for M.L., who had previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) sentence.

M.L. sought release under conditional supervision, arguing significant progress in rehabilitation despite being transferred to an adult correctional facility where appropriate youth programming was unavailable.

The Crown sought to confirm the original sentence.

The court found that M.L. had met the evidentiary burden to justify a change in sentence, demonstrating exceptional commitment to rehabilitation despite challenging circumstances.

The court ordered M.L.'s release from custody to conditional supervision, emphasizing that this decision best advanced both the young person's needs and the long-term protection of society through rehabilitation, and imposed strict conditions to ensure accountability and continued progress.

Shelly-Ann James was charged with second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her mother.

The trial, heard without a jury, focused on whether Ms. James was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically if her illness rendered her incapable of knowing her conduct was morally wrong.

The court heard evidence of Ms. James's long history of schizophrenia, marked by delusions, disorganized thinking, and paranoia, including a fixed belief in an entity called "Jigsaw" and fears of being harmed or surveilled.

While expert opinions diverged on her capacity for moral wrongfulness, the court found no rational or reality-based motive for the killing.

Instead, it concluded that Ms. James acted in response to a delusional belief that she and her children were in danger.

The court accepted the opinion that her extensive symptom burden at the time of the killing prevented her from assessing the moral wrongfulness of her actions against societal norms.

Consequently, Ms. James was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.