Michael MacDonald

The accused was charged with two separate first-degree murders in Toronto and Brampton.

During a pre-trial motion, the court previously ruled that the accused's confessions to undercover officers were admissible.

In this motion, the court determined how to edit the confession for the Toronto trial to prevent the jury from hearing overly prejudicial evidence about the Brampton homicide.

The court ruled that explicit references to the Brampton shooting must be edited out, but circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the car and gun used in both incidents remained admissible due to its high probative value regarding identity.

The accused was charged with two separate counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit confessions obtained during a lengthy undercover 'Mr. Big' operation.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart, assessing the threshold reliability of the confessions against their prejudicial effect.

The court found the confessions to be highly detailed, internally consistent, and corroborated by holdback evidence, establishing strong probative value.

The moral prejudice arising from the accused's involvement in the simulated criminal organization was deemed mitigable through editing and jury instructions.

The confessions were ruled admissible.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a shootout with police in a nightclub parking lot.

The driver was killed, and the accused fled by crawling under a nearby pickup truck.

A prohibited firearm was later found under the truck.

The accused denied crawling under the truck or possessing the firearm.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding it not credible and contradicted by video evidence and officer testimony.

Applying the test for circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the only rational inference was that the accused possessed the firearm and discarded it while hiding.

The accused was found guilty of both firearms offences.

The accused was charged with firearms, drug, and driving offences following police surveillance, a vehicle stop, and an apartment search.

The court found that the accused did not know unmarked police vehicles were pursuing him when he fled an intersection, believing instead he was escaping gang violence.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove the accused had constructive possession of a firearm and marijuana found in a friend's apartment.

The accused was acquitted of all charges, including dangerous driving and mischief to property, as the Crown failed to prove the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following conviction after trial for a violent home invasion robbery involving firearms, the offender was sentenced for multiple offences including armed robbery, aggravated assault, discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life, unlawful confinement, and several firearms possession offences.

During the robbery three armed assailants entered an apartment, confined the victim, and shot him in the back as he attempted to flee, causing life‑threatening injuries.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in home invasion and gun crimes.

Considering aggravating factors such as the use of firearms, the grievous injuries inflicted, and the offender’s prior youth record and breach of a firearms prohibition, the court imposed a significant penitentiary sentence within the established range for home invasion offences.

The applicant, Mohamed Taha, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case on charges of accessory after the fact to robbery, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's presence near the driver's door of the getaway vehicle and a rental agreement in his name found inside.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could infer that the applicant was the driver.