Melissa Montemurro

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a dwelling house, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The defendant broke into a residence in Markham, was chased by the homeowner's son, and dropped a bag containing stolen wallets and cannabis.

Police subsequently executed a search warrant on the defendant's residence and located a loaded, sawed-off shotgun with the serial number removed in the defendant's bedroom closet.

The defendant was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition order and a probation order prohibiting weapon possession at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years in the penitentiary, with credit for pre-sentence custody and enhanced credit for harsh detention conditions.

The applicant, Sarkis Mirzoyan, sought certiorari to quash two decisions of a provincial court judge who had dismissed his request for an "administrative transfer of venue" from York Region to Toronto.

Mirzoyan argued that only the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction for such a transfer under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the application for certiorari, finding that there is no legislative or procedural mechanism for an accused to seek an "administrative transfer of venue" from the Chief Justice.

The court clarified that such requests are not true administrative transfers but rather akin to s. 599 Criminal Code change of venue applications, which were premature in this case as no election for mode of trial had been made.

The Applicant, charged with gun and drug offences, sought a bail review after being detained by a Justice of the Peace.

The court conducted a de novo review, finding that the initial bail hearing had materially misapprehended the proposed release plan.

The court assessed the revised bail plan under the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

It found the Applicant's parents suitable as sureties, despite minor inconsistencies in their testimony, and deemed the proposed house arrest with a security system sufficiently robust to address public safety concerns.

The court also considered the strength of the prosecution's case, including potential Charter defenses, and concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was granted, and the Applicant was ordered released on conditions.

The applicant, Athrin Deko, sought a bail review after being detained on gun and drug charges.

The court addressed the threshold question of whether sufficient grounds existed for a de novo review of his detention under R. v. St-Cloud.

The applicant argued the Justice of the Peace misapprehended the evidence regarding his proposed bail plan, specifically the supervision arrangements by his parents who worked opposite shifts.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace, likely influenced by Crown counsel, misunderstood the details of the bail plan, leading to an erroneous conclusion about the adequacy of supervision.

This material misapprehension of evidence was deemed to satisfy the St-Cloud threshold for review, impacting both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The matter was adjourned for a full bail review hearing.

The applicant, Katrina Vanderwyk, sought an order of certiorari to quash her committal to stand trial on a count of attempted murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The application argued that the preliminary inquiry justice erred by committing her in the absence of any evidence on an essential element of the offence, specifically regarding her intent to aid an attempted murder.

The court, applying the "scintilla of evidence" standard for jurisdictional review, found that despite competing inferences and a minor error in considering certain evidence, there remained a sufficient evidentiary basis for a properly instructed jury to infer the requisite elements of attempted murder.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, upholding the committal.

The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from an armed robbery of a jewellery store.

One accused pled guilty to several charges but contested the charge of attempted murder, while the other accused contested all charges based on identity.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and intercepted communications, insufficient to prove the identity of the second robber beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also acquitted the first accused of attempted murder, finding she lacked subjective awareness of any intent to kill by her co-perpetrator.

Both accused were acquitted of the contested charges.

The defendant, Jefferey J. Mitchell, was charged with robbery, masked face, and using an imitation firearm following a bank robbery on June 5, 2015.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the robber.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's physical description, vehicle, and clothing matching those of the robber, as well as evidence of the defendant's recent possession of dye-stained money from the robbery found at two casinos shortly after the incident.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession and, considering the totality of the circumstantial evidence, found that the Crown had proven the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The defendant, a personal support worker at a nursing home, was charged with assault for allegedly pushing the head of an elderly patient with Alzheimer's disease three times while showering her.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of a fellow PSW worker who claimed to have witnessed the alleged pushes.

The defendant testified that she was simply washing the patient's face and hair to remove feces and did not assault the patient.

The court found the defendant not guilty, concluding that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant frailties in the eyewitness testimony and the consistency of the defendant's account with the physical evidence.

A young person charged with robbery with a firearm, point firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and conspiracy to commit robbery brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service Hold-up Squad officers used excessive force by beating him while he was detained in an interview room at 41 Division.

The applicant also alleged breaches of his rights under sections 7, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was assaulted in the manner alleged.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and found that the injuries observed were inconsistent with the alleged brutal assault.

The court concluded that the officers' actions were justified and proportional to the applicant's aggressive behaviour.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) and s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the delay in bringing his criminal harassment trial violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to trial was approximately 14 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, examining the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay (including inherent time requirements, actions of the accused, actions of the Crown, and institutional delay), and prejudice.

The court found that while the total delay exceeded the 8-10 month guideline, much of the delay was attributable to the applicant's own actions, including his failure to obtain necessary transcripts for a certiorari application and his failure to comply with court rules.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges of assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering death threats, break and enter, criminal harassment, and failure to comply with probation arising from a pattern of domestic violence against his common law partner over approximately two years.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation for the domestic violence charges, plus a four-month conditional sentence for the failure to comply charge, with strict conditions including residence at a treatment facility, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and no contact with the victim.

The court emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence while considering the offender's youth, Aboriginal background, difficult upbringing, early guilty plea, and prospects for rehabilitation through treatment.