Michael Leitold

Following a judge-alone trial resulting in convictions for trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine), possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited by court order, the court imposed sentence.

The offender had a prior record including a 2008 drug trafficking conviction and two weapons prohibition orders in force.

The court received an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment addressing systemic anti-Black racism and the offender's disadvantaged upbringing in a marginalized community.

Despite finding those systemic factors attenuated the offender's moral blameworthiness to some degree, the court rejected a conditional sentence, finding insufficient evidence of rehabilitative efforts since the last conviction and that the offender had demonstrated a complete disregard for prior court orders.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of four years and 160 days, reflecting consecutive terms for the firearm, prohibition breach, and trafficking offences, with credits for pre-sentence custody, bail restrictions, and a Charter breach relating to the right to counsel.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a directed verdict application in a case where the accused, Ryan Vernaza-Vinces, was charged with flight from a police officer contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

The key legal issue was whether the Crown must prove that the police were operating a motor vehicle while pursuing the accused under the new section 320.17, which replaced the older section 249.1(1).

The court held that the current statutory language does not require proof that police were in a motor vehicle during pursuit, overruling obiter dicta from prior Superior Court decisions.

The decision clarifies the essential elements of the offence under the updated provision.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Brandon Caleb for trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, expert testimony, and physical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caleb trafficked in cocaine and possessed a loaded firearm at his residence.

The court rejected alternative explanations and found the evidence did not support reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The applicant, Brandon Caleb, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that the delay in bringing his case to trial violated his right under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including the complexity of the Project Venom prosecution, the joining and severing of accused, and the Crown’s management of the case.

Applying the framework from R. v. Jordan, the court found that although the presumptive ceiling for delay was exceeded, the case was sufficiently complex and the Crown had a concrete plan to minimize delay.

Exceptional circumstances justified the delay, and the application was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, arguing a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under R. v. Jordan, despite the total delay of 16 months and 9 days being below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence demonstrated a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, primarily due to significant and inexplicable delays by the police in providing crucial video disclosure (complainant's statement, 911 audio, and medical records) for over seven months.

The court emphasized the constitutional disclosure obligations of the Crown and the police's role in timely disclosure.

The application for a stay was granted, and the proceedings were stayed.

This sentencing decision concerns Michael Chapman, who pleaded guilty to approximately 20 counts under the Criminal Code and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences included mail theft, dangerous driving, fleeing police, operating a stolen vehicle, identity theft, fraudulent credit card use, property damage, and uttering threats, alongside trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record, significant victim impact, and the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs.

Mitigating factors were the guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, successful engagement in addiction treatment, completion of high school, strong family support, and a job offer.

The Crown sought a total sentence of approximately four years of incarceration, while the defence argued for a suspended sentence or a community-based sentence.

The court imposed a total net sentence of 20 months, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation, a DNA order, a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, and a two-year driving prohibition.

The judge found a conditional sentence appropriate, balancing the seriousness of the offences with the offender's rehabilitation and the principle of restraint, concluding that community safety would not be endangered.

Justin Barrett pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order, possession of cocaine, fentanyl, a prohibited loaded firearm, and an oversized magazine.

The sentencing hearing was delayed for a 'Morris' report.

Both Crown and defence sought a conditional sentence, differing on its legal basis and length.

The court considered aggravating factors (loaded, modified firearm in public, flight from police, breach of house arrest, drug possession) and significant mitigating factors, including social context evidence (trauma, poverty, racism, lack of support, positive rehabilitation efforts).

The court found Mr. Barrett's moral blameworthiness significantly reduced.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed for the firearms charges (concurrently with a 60-day conditional sentence for other offences), followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentence included a de-escalating house arrest and curfew period.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was 50.5 months.

After deducting 1.25 months for defence delay, the net delay was 49.25 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the trial could not have proceeded during the pandemic period in any event due to the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The accused, charged with robbery and accessory after the fact, brought a motion to adjourn her jury trial due to late disclosure by the Crown.

The late disclosure included a police video re-enactment of the getaway route, undisclosed photographs, and a new will-say statement from a complainant that significantly altered the evidentiary landscape.

The court found that proceeding to trial without giving the defence adequate time to investigate and adapt to the new evidence would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

The motion for an adjournment was granted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon following an incident on Christmas morning 2014 in which he stabbed the victim once in the chest with a knife.

The Crown sought fifteen months' imprisonment while the defence sought less than six months.

The court considered the defendant's background, including his status as a permanent resident, his mental health and substance abuse issues, his positive pre-sentence report, and the relatively modest physical injuries sustained by the victim.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of approximately six months based on pre-sentence custody credit, suspended the passing of sentence, and placed the defendant on three years' probation with conditions including community service, substance abuse and mental health counselling, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The accused was charged with several firearm offences and possession of cocaine after police executed a search warrant at a residence and located a shotgun and crack cocaine in a bedroom where the accused was found.

The Crown relied primarily on police testimony to establish that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The court found significant reliability issues in the police evidence, including inconsistencies regarding whether entry photographs were taken before or after the search and a lack of contemporaneous notes documenting critical events.

The court also found insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the bedroom or demonstrating control over its contents.

As a result, the Crown failed to prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with drug-related offences following a police search warrant executed at his residence.

The Crown sought to rely on the "step six" process from R. v. Garafoli to have the court consider redacted portions of the Information to Obtain (ITO) that were excised to protect the identity of a confidential informant.

The defence opposed this request, arguing that the Crown's summary of the redacted material did not provide sufficient information to mount a proper challenge to the warrant's validity.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of whether the summary adequately disclosed the nature of the redacted information under the three Debot criteria: credibility of the informant, corroboration, and compellability.

The court found that the step six process could be applied on a partial basis, allowing the Crown to rely on the unredacted ITO for certain paragraphs where the summary provided sufficient detail, while restricting the Crown to the redacted version for other paragraphs where the summary was inadequate.