Michael Townsend

The accused was charged with eight counts relating to possession and trafficking of controlled substances (cocaine, ketamine, MDMA, and LSD) and exporting controlled substances.

The accused admitted to purchasing a bulk quantity of drugs with 15 friends for consumption at electronic dance music festivals.

The accused stored the drugs at his residence, divided them into individual portions for his friends, and attempted to ship some to Miami.

The court found the accused guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possession for the purpose of exporting, but acquitted on the two counts of exporting, finding the actus reus incomplete as the drugs never left Canada.

The accused was convicted of kidnapping with a firearm, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm.

The offences involved the abduction of a lone female victim from a public parking lot at gunpoint, her transportation and confinement in a vehicle for hours, forced sexual assault at gunpoint, and her subsequent torture at a residential location.

A firearm was discharged at a Good Samaritan attempting to assist the victim.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years for kidnapping with a firearm, less three years pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in 10 years remaining custody.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts.

The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, the planning involved, the use of firearms, and the profound psychological and physical impact on the victim.

This decision addresses the charge of criminal harassment under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on whether the creation and content of a website by the accused, Mahyar Radmehr, constituted threatening conduct causing the complainant, Ms. K., to reasonably fear for her safety.

The Court found that while the website caused embarrassment, anxiety, and frustration to Ms. K., it was not designed as a tool of intimidation to instill fear.

The Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court also declined to impose a common law peace bond requested by the Crown, finding no reasonable fear to justify such an order.

This sentencing decision addresses a hate-motivated assault involving spitting and hateful Nazi-related language and gestures directed at Jewish victims.

The court found the offender guilty of assault and breach of probation, emphasizing the aggravating factor of hate motivation under section 718.2(a)(1) of the Criminal Code.

The decision carefully considers victim and community impact statements, the offender’s prior criminal record, mental health background, and lack of remorse.

The court imposed a 12-month jail sentence followed by two years probation, along with DNA and s.110 orders, underscoring the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in hate crime sentencing.

This decision involves Keyron Moore charged with multiple offences including kidnapping, sexual assault, and firearm-related offences.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, and after hearing extensive evidence including the complainant A.T.'s testimony, Mr. Moore's testimony, forensic evidence, and phone extraction reports, the court dismissed two counts due to no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The judge found Mr. Moore to be an active participant in a real and violent kidnapping and sexual assault, rejecting his claim of a fake kidnapping and consensual sexual activity.

The court relied heavily on the complainant's credible testimony, forensic evidence linking Mr. Moore to duct tape used in the offence, and phone communications indicating his involvement.

Mr. Moore was convicted on five counts and acquitted on one.

This decision addresses the evidentiary requirements under section 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code regarding the certification of alcohol standard solutions used in breathalyzer testing.

The court found that the qualified breath technician’s viva voce evidence, supported by certificates and physical evidence of the alcohol standard solutions (lot numbers 202205A and 202205E), satisfied the statutory requirements.

The accused’s Charter challenges under sections 8, 9, and the informational delay component of section 10(b) were rejected.

The court convicted the accused on the 80+ blood alcohol concentration charge and stayed the impaired driving charge pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

This decision addresses the Crown's application for abridgement of time for service and filing of its Form 2 response to a defence Charter Application under the Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court emphasizes the fundamental importance of fairness and adherence to procedural rules but recognizes that inadvertent non-compliance, when explained and without bad faith, does not necessarily warrant prohibiting the Crown from responding.

The Court grants the Crown's application, allowing the late response, and highlights the discretion courts have to ensure just and efficient proceedings.

The accused, K.B., was sentenced following his conviction for the sexual assault of his former spouse.

The offence involved non-consensual penetrative sex while the victim was sleeping, causing her significant ongoing psychological trauma.

The defense sought a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years, while the Crown argued for a four-year penitentiary term.

Justice Townsend concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and sentenced the accused to three years in the penitentiary, accompanied by ancillary orders.

The offender, Domonic Andre Mudahy, pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery.

The first involved a Rogers store, where he acted as the driver, and the second involved a Best Buy, where he was also the driver and not directly involved in the kidnapping or entry.

The second offence was committed while on bail for the first.

The court considered his youth, lack of prior record, and community involvement as mitigating factors, alongside significant pre-sentence custody credit (including enhanced Summers credit and Duncan/Marshall credit for harsh conditions).

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the robberies, the vulnerability of the victims, the sophisticated planning, and the commission of a new offence while on bail.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the serious and prevalent nature of such violent commercial robberies.

A global sentence of 5 years in the penitentiary was imposed, with 20 months deducted for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 40 months.

The defendant, Milan Tosic, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The trial included a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically concerning police entry onto private property and the timing of detention and rights to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that police acted within the implied license to investigate and that detention began when the defendant voluntarily exited his residence.

Based on the admissible evidence, including civilian testimony of erratic driving, police observations of impairment, and breath test results, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired operation, staying the over 80 charge under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Azary Matanov, charged with sexual assault, brought a two-stage application under sections 278.93(1) and 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of certain evidence (text messages, a selfie, a phone call, and a kiss) at trial.

The evidence was sought to provide context to the relationship with the complainant and to challenge her credibility.

The court granted the Stage One application, finding the evidence capable of being admissible, and subsequently granted the Stage Two application, finding the evidence admissible.

The court emphasized that in a judge-alone trial, the risk of improper use of evidence is diminished, and the probative value of the evidence for context and credibility outweighed any potential prejudicial effect, without engaging "twin myth" reasoning.

The Crown brought an application for two orders under the Criminal Code: to allow the complainant to testify outside the courtroom via closed-circuit television or Zoom, and to permit a court support dog to be present during her testimony.

The complainant, a victim of kidnapping, sexual assault, and torture, expressed significant anxiety about testifying in court.

The court granted both orders, finding that these testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account from the complainant and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice, balancing the truth-seeking function with the accused's right to a fair trial.

The accused, Giacomo Fiorillo, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay from the information being sworn to the application hearing (817 days or 26.9 months).

The court deducted 531 days (17.5 months) as defence delay, including explicit waivers and adjournments clearly requested by the defence or due to the accused's non-attendance.

The net delay was 286 days (9.4 months), which is well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown's request for a COVID-19 related deduction was denied at this stage.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, Muhammed Ali Malik Sher, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance, failure/refusal to comply with a breath demand, and breach of a probation order (operating a vehicle with any alcohol in blood).

The accused testified that his symptoms (swerving, unsteadiness, vomiting) were due to illness (COVID-19) and not alcohol.

The court rejected the accused's explanation, finding it illogical and contradicted by evidence, particularly the strong odour of alcohol.

The court found that alcohol was at least a contributing factor to the impairment.

Regarding the refusal to provide a breath sample, the court found an unequivocal refusal based on words and actions, despite the accused's claim of disorientation.

The court also found that the impaired operation by alcohol logically inferred a blood alcohol concentration above zero, breaching the probation order.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The defendant, Manuel Gomes, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by s. 11(b).

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 817 days (26.8 months).

The court deducted 112 days for an exceptional circumstance (time between Information sworn and arrest while Gomes was abroad), 28 days for defence delay, and 90 days for the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

After these deductions, the net delay was 19.3 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

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

This criminal trial concerned Philip Zivkovic, charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant wilfully refused to provide a sample after being found asleep at the wheel of his vehicle.

The defendant argued that his refusal was not unequivocal due to confusion regarding his right to counsel and the consequences of non-compliance, exacerbated by conflicting information from police officers and his anxiety.

The court, applying the "single transaction test" found that the defendant's immediate change in demeanor and genuine offer to provide a sample upon arrest, coupled with the continued availability of the screening device, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether his refusal was unequivocal.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty.