Megan Petrie

The court sentenced Ciro Garofano to life imprisonment with 18 years of parole ineligibility for second-degree murder, and concurrent 10-year sentences for two counts of aggravated assault.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims and their families, and the aggravating and mitigating factors considered.

The court reviewed the statutory framework for parole ineligibility, relevant case law, and the fit sentence in light of the facts and sentencing principles.

This decision involves the sentencing of P.M. following convictions for counselling sexual touching, sexual assault, sexual interference, and making child pornography involving a single victim who was the daughter of P.M.'s partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, surreptitious video recording, and significant impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included family support, counselling efforts, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA reporting, firearm prohibitions, and a 20-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code restricting contact with minors and certain locations.

The court sentenced K. M. Thauhidul Islam for the attempted murder of his wife, as well as for prior assaults and breaches of court orders.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 years, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and non-communication order.

K.M. Thauhidul Islam faced charges of assault, uttering threats to cause death, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and attempted murder against his wife, Farzana Iqbal.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, accepting the complainant's testimony over the defendant's inconsistent account.

The judge determined that the defendant had the specific intent to kill for the attempted murder charge, based on the weapon used, the location and severity of the blows, and the direct threats uttered during the attack.

P.R. was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference, and two counts of invitation to sexual touching involving his daughter and two nieces, aged five to sixteen.

The court considered aggravating factors including the relationship of trust, the victims' young ages, repetition and duration of abuse, vulnerability, and significant psychological impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, pro-social history, and community support, though tempered by lack of remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, rejecting the notion that non-penetrative acts are less harmful.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or a six-year global sentence, while the Crown sought 12.5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years incarceration, with specific concurrent and consecutive terms for the counts, and various ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, and a SOIRA order for life.

In a first-degree murder prosecution, the Crown and defence brought pretrial applications regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The Crown sought to admit recognition evidence from the accused's probation officer identifying him in surveillance videos.

The defence sought to admit evidence of the deceased's prior violent acts and threats to support a claim of self-defence.

The court admitted the recognition evidence, finding it met the threshold for reliability.

The court also permitted the defence to introduce evidence of prior altercations involving the deceased, but excluded hearsay evidence regarding the deceased allegedly stating he was going to get a gun.

Finally, the court ruled that introducing evidence of the deceased's violent nature opened the door for the Crown to introduce evidence of the accused's propensity for violence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against two young boys, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender and indeterminate sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly used circumstantial evidence, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

He also challenged the dangerous offender finding, arguing the trial judge unduly relied on psychiatric evidence and erred in finding a pattern of repetitive behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, concluding that trial counsel's representation was competent, and upholding the dangerous offender designation based on the predicate offences and the appellant's high risk of re-offending.

The appellant, J.H., appealed his conviction for two counts of sexual assault.

The appeal raised five grounds: failure to declare a mistrial due to erroneous reception of uncharged disreputable conduct evidence, improper questioning of the complainant, failure to instruct the jury on prior consistent statements and hearsay, failure to instruct on the distinction between lack of evidence of motive to fabricate and proven absence of motive to fabricate, and failure to provide corrective instructions regarding the Crown's closing address.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the conviction.

This is an appeal from an initial disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for assault causing bodily harm and assaulting a peace officer.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding that he posed a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, alternatively, argued for a conditional discharge instead of a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and amply supported by evidence, including expert opinions on the appellant's high risk for violent behaviour, lack of insight, and history of non-compliance with treatment.

The court affirmed that the ORB's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges was justified, particularly for supervising housing and ensuring prompt readmission if the appellant relapsed, given his history of threatening housemates.

R.D. appealed his conviction for sexual interference, sexual assault, and uttering threats, citing deficiencies in the jury charge and an unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in not applying an aggravating factor related to a position of trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both R.D.'s conviction appeal, finding the jury charge adequate and the delay not unreasonable, and the Crown's sentence appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that a position of trust was not established in the particular circumstances.

Two appellants were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from a home invasion in Mississauga.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence, cell phone tower records, Blackberry Messenger text messages, and circumstantial inferences to establish identity.

The appellants challenged their convictions on various grounds, including the reasonableness of the verdicts and the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both conviction appeals, finding the trial judge properly considered the cumulative effect of the evidence and correctly applied exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Both appellants received nine-year sentences; the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals but allowed the sentence appeals in part by setting aside victim fine surcharges and adjusting presentence custody credits.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that continued a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's analysis was unreasonable because it improperly focused on the appellant's lack of insight into his medical condition rather than conducting a holistic assessment of whether he posed a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm to the public.

The Board also failed to adequately address conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's insight and did not provide sufficient evidentiary analysis of the relevant factors.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant, a young person, appealed their conviction for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his credibility analysis by failing to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's account and by not considering the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, was not required to address every inconsistency, and correctly determined that there was no air of reality to the mistaken belief defence given the diametrically opposed versions of events presented by the parties.

The appellant appealed his conviction for armed robbery and related offences, arguing that the trial judge failed to address a suggestion that a police officer may have condoned the complainant lying in his statement to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the suggestion was not the only interpretation of the evidence and that the trial judge properly addressed inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The court also upheld the sentence of eight years less two years' credit for pre-sentence custody as fit, but granted leave to appeal sentence and varied it only to strike the victim fine surcharge in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and breach of probation, as well as his sentence of 20 months imposed following a judge-alone trial.

The sole issue on the conviction appeal was whether the prosecution should have been stayed for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial judge found that after appropriate deductions, the delay did not exceed the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's analysis, finding no error in the attribution of delay periods and confirming that the total delay, even after correcting for one instance of double-counting, remained below 18 months.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentencing judge committed no error of law or principle.

The victim surcharge was set aside in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant appealed his convictions for internet luring, sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of a 15-year-old complainant, as well as his global sentence of five and one-half years.

This was the second trial on these charges; the first trial resulted in acquittal on charges involving the same complainant, but a Crown appeal led to a new trial.

The appellant admitted to sexual activity with the complainant but claimed he honestly believed her to be between 16 and 18 years old, despite meeting her on an 18+ chat site where her profile listed her age as 18.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, upholding both the convictions and the sentence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from the dismissal of his appeal from his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent test for leave to appeal, requiring either a clear error of law or an issue of public importance.

The court found that the appellant failed to meet this test, as he challenged factual findings and credibility determinations made by the trial judge rather than identifying errors in the appellate judge's decision.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the complainant's evidence regarding the poisoning of her cat was not relied upon, that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, and that the appellant's conduct constituted criminal harassment.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for break and enter and related offences.

The appellant did not contest that he was the driver of a van that neighbours observed passing a tool to the perpetrator of a daylight residential break-in.

The Court of Appeal found that the constellation of evidence at trial amply supported the inference that the driver of the van was party to a planned break and enter of a dwelling house.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the appellant abandoned his sentence appeal during oral argument.

Bail was rescinded and the intermittent sentence was ordered to resume.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from an attempted robbery on January 6, 2013.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal challenging the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of cell phone records, the denial of the motion for directed verdict on the robbery count, or the jury instruction on party liability.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.