46 total
First offender sentenced to 90 days intermittent for aggravated assault, avoiding severe immigration consequences.
The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and threatening damage to property following an altercation with a close friend.
The victim suffered a broken orbital bone.
The Crown sought 9 to 12 months incarceration, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence, noting the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and potential immigration consequences as a permanent resident.
The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence (65 days net after pre-sentence credit) and one year of probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's strong rehabilitative prospects and the victim's desire for reconciliation.
Two inmates were committed for trial on hostage taking and mischief charges following a standoff.
At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two accused for trial on charges arising from a hostage-taking incident at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
Stanton David was charged with three counts of hostage taking, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
Alpha Water was charged with three counts of hostage taking and one count of placing a trap with intent to cause bodily harm.
The Crown also sought committal on two counts of mischief for Water.
The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused for trial on the hostage-taking charges and committed Water on the mischief charges, but discharged Water on the trap charge due to insufficient evidence of intent to cause bodily harm.
The youth was acquitted of firearm possession due to unproven knowledge and control.
A sixteen-year-old was charged with seven offences relating to the unlawful possession of a loaded firearm found in a vehicle.
The Crown alleged the accused possessed the firearm either directly, constructively, or jointly, and alternatively that he was an occupant in a vehicle knowing there was a firearm.
The court found that while the accused may have known of the firearm's existence, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had both knowledge and control of the weapon.
The firearm was not visible or accessible to the accused in the rear seat, and his presence in the vehicle and subsequent flight could be explained by circumstances other than knowledge of the gun.
The accused was acquitted of all charges.
Successful party awarded disbursements after opposing motion to vary preservation order.
The applicant sought costs after successfully responding to a motion to vary a preservation order relating to property subject to civil forfeiture proceedings.
The applicant requested reimbursement of disbursements only.
The court granted the request and ordered payment of the disbursements.
The total amount awarded was $2,669.69.
Court refuses to release preserved assets for living expenses under Civil Remedies Act.
The moving parties sought a variation of preservation orders issued under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 to permit access to preserved assets to pay personal debts and living expenses.
The Attorney General opposed the request in the context of ongoing forfeiture proceedings concerning property alleged to be proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity.
The court held that the Act contains no provision permitting living expenses to be paid from preserved assets and that the alleged financial difficulties were not new facts arising after the orders were made.
Evidence also suggested that the moving parties had failed to comply with existing preservation orders and had continued discretionary spending.
The motion to vary the preservation orders was dismissed.
Accused convicted of impaired driving; assault charge dismissed due to unlawful arrest for failing to identify.
The accused was charged with impaired operation, over 80 mgs, and assault with intent to resist arrest following a traffic stop where he exhibited erratic driving and refused to comply with police demands.
The over 80 mgs charge was dismissed as no breath samples were taken.
The assault charge was dismissed because the arrest for failing to identify under the Highway Traffic Act was deemed unlawful, as the officer did not request alternative identification.
However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on his driving conduct, physical symptoms of impairment, and bizarre behaviour.
A Charter application alleging excessive force during the arrest was dismissed, with the court finding the officers' use of force was measured and justified given the accused's resistance.