M. Forestell

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.

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.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a fatal shooting outside a bar.

After a dispute, the offender handed a mask to an unidentified shooter who then shot the victim.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years and 3 months, arguing for mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including extensive lockdowns and lack of medical care.

The court found the appropriate sentence was 8 years, but reduced it by 6 months to 7.5 years to reflect the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a lookout in a planned armed robbery of a drug dealer, during which an accomplice shot and killed the victim.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought less than 5 years.

The court considered the offender's lower level of culpability (objective foresight of risk), his early guilty plea, remorse, and mental health challenges.

The court also applied significant mitigation for the harsh conditions of his presentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and the collateral consequences of his vulnerability to assault in custody due to his plea.

The offender was sentenced to 6.5 years' imprisonment before statutory credit.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after an unprovoked physical altercation in a bank vestibule resulted in the victim's death from blunt force trauma.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 5 to 8 years.

The court weighed the brutal and senseless nature of the attack against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and harsh presentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment before statutory credit for presentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for stabbing his intimate partner to death.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 16 to 17 years, while the accused sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the killing, the breach of trust, and the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence, balanced against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery.

The Crown applied to have him designated a long-term offender.

The offender has a lengthy criminal record, a history of substance abuse, and schizophrenia.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a long-term offender designation, as a sentence of two years or more was appropriate, there was a substantial risk of violent reoffending, and there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

The court sentenced the offender to 6.5 years imprisonment (with 307 days left to serve after pre-sentence custody credit) and imposed a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

In a first-degree murder trial involving a domestic homicide, the Crown sought to introduce various out-of-court statements and text messages.

The court ruled on the admissibility of this evidence, applying the Barton framework for prior sexual conduct and the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court admitted text messages arranging a sexual encounter as evidence of the accused's motive, but excluded them as evidence of the deceased's state of mind.

The court also admitted several of the accused's prior statements as admissions, while excluding certain hearsay statements made by the deceased to her estranged husband for lack of threshold reliability.

The offender pleaded guilty to attempted murder after shooting a stranger multiple times at point-blank range during a public celebration in downtown Toronto.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and difficult background as mitigating factors, balanced against the extreme violence and public danger of the offence.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, reduced by 18 months for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and declined to order delayed parole.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery of jewelry stores and one count of fraud over $5,000 relating to a staged accident.

The court found the robberies were well-planned, sophisticated, and involved serious violence and risk to the public.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender's relative youth and prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' imprisonment before credit.

The court granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic and credit for time spent on strict bail, resulting in a net sentence of 44.5 months to serve.

Three offenders pleaded guilty to multiple firearms offences, including aggravated assault and reckless discharge of a firearm, following a planned shooting at a taxicab that wounded one passenger.

One offender also pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the public shooting alongside mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, youth, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Global sentences of 6 years were imposed for two offenders and 7.5 years for the third, before applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with voyeurism for taking 'up-skirt' videos of women on public transit and at his workplace.

The accused claimed he hired escorts and had their consent to live out a fantasy.

The court rejected the accused's statement as inconsistent with the video evidence, which showed him quickly following unsuspecting women.

The court found that the recordings captured the anal region (buttocks) of the subjects, who had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and entered a finding of guilt.

The offender pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm after placing his infant child face down on a thick blanket, resulting in catastrophic and permanent brain damage.

The court considered the offender's breach of trust as a parent, the profound impact on the vulnerable victim, and the offender's repeated breaches of bail.

The court also factored in the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic as a mitigating factor.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The accused, a high school teacher, organized and led a wilderness canoe trip for students.

During the trip, a 15-year-old student drowned while swimming without a lifejacket.

The Crown alleged that the accused's failure to follow safety guidelines, including allowing non-swimmers on the trip and permitting the student to swim without a lifejacket, constituted criminal negligence causing death.

The court found that while the accused's conduct in failing to reassess the risk at the swim site fell below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent parent, it was not a marked and substantial departure from that standard.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two bank robberies, disguise with intent, and assault resist arrest.

The Crown relied on video surveillance and a statement made by the accused upon arrest.

The court excluded the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a systemic breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel when police asked if he had anything to say immediately after he requested a lawyer.

On the robbery charges, the court found the video evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

However, the court found the accused guilty of assault resist arrest for struggling and striking an officer during his lawful arrest.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms and drug offences, including selling firearms to an undercover officer and possessing significant quantities of fentanyl and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the danger of guns and fentanyl in the community.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail, resulting in 10 years and 140 days remaining to be served.

Following a jury verdict finding the applicant guilty of firearms and drug offences, the applicant brought a post-verdict application for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 and s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The applicant alleged that a police officer breached an order excluding witnesses and lied about it, amounting to an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application post-verdict because the alleged conduct engaged trial fairness concerns and should have been raised before the verdict.

In the alternative, the court found as a fact that the officer did not breach the order or lie.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The Crown's case was wholly circumstantial, relying on evidence of animus, opportunity, means, and post-offence conduct.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, engaging in a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence to determine if reasonable inferences of guilt could be drawn.

The court concluded that the cumulative evidence could support a reasonable inference that the applicant was the shooter, and dismissed the application.

During a trial for second degree murder, the accused brought a Corbett application to prevent the Crown from cross-examining him on his criminal record should he choose to testify.

The accused's record included dated convictions for assault, weapons offences, and property offences.

The court applied the Corbett factors and concluded that the probative value of the convictions was outweighed by their prejudicial effect, particularly given their age and the risk of propensity reasoning.

The application was granted, and the Crown was prohibited from cross-examining the accused on his criminal record.

The accused was charged with the first degree murder of his father, who died from a gunshot wound to the eye while sleeping.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's purchase of the murder weapon, his presence near the scene at the time of death, and his fabrication of a false alibi.

The court rejected the defence theory of suicide, finding that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence led to the inescapable conclusion that the accused planned and deliberated the intentional killing of his father.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.