Michael Ventola

The offender, a youthful first offender, was found guilty of receiving a material benefit from the sexual services of three women over a ten-month period.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found that while the offence was serious and inherently exploitative, it did not involve violence, coercion, or underage complainants.

Emphasizing the principles of individual deterrence and rehabilitation for youthful first offenders, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served under house arrest, followed by 18 months of probation.

This is a youth sentencing decision for a young person, R.R., who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and robbery while using a firearm.

The offences involved two carjackings, the abduction and shooting of one victim, and the brandishing of a firearm in a second incident.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the gravity of the offences, R.R.'s prior youth record involving firearms, and his being on probation and a firearms prohibition at the time.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, pre-trial custody (441 days, including during the COVID-19 pandemic), educational courses taken in detention, strong family support, and expressed remorse.

The court addressed the issue of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody in the youth context, noting differences from adult sentencing.

The judge emphasized specific deterrence and public protection, finding that R.R. posed a high risk to public safety despite family support.

A further custodial sentence was deemed necessary for rehabilitation and reintegration.

This ruling addresses several pre-trial applications in a criminal case where the accused, H.H., is charged with procuring a minor for sexual services and other sex trade related offences.

The Crown sought to admit the complainant's video statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and the accused's statement, arguing its voluntariness.

The accused sought to adduce Instagram photos under s. 278.93 and cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity under s. 276.

The court granted the Crown's s. 715.1 application by consent and found the accused's statement voluntary, admitting it into evidence.

The accused's s. 278.93 application was dismissed as the photos were not "records" with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The s. 276 application was also dismissed, as the proposed evidence of prior sexual activity was deemed irrelevant, perpetuating "twin myths," not specific instances, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The defendants, Jamal and Jamis Yusuf, sought to reopen their trial after conviction for assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement, and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The application was based on a new affidavit from co-accused Aziz Pauls, who did not testify at trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence failed to meet the credibility and impact requirements of the test for reopening a trial after conviction, particularly given the strong video evidence and prior judicial findings.

Richard Aguilar was found guilty after trial for three child-luring related offences.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought a global custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the Defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months of custody, along with probation and ancillary orders, balancing sentencing objectives, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The applicant was pulled over for a traffic infraction and subsequently arrested for breaching a recognizance.

After finding a small amount of marijuana on the applicant's person, police conducted a full search of the vehicle, discovering a firearm.

The applicant brought a Charter application arguing the stop was racially motivated and the search and questioning violated his rights.

The court found no arbitrary detention but concluded the police violated the applicant's s. 10(b) rights through improper questioning and his s. 8 rights by conducting an unreasonable search that exceeded their authority under the Cannabis Control Act.

The firearm was excluded from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from Project Raphael, an investigation into underage prostitution in York Region.

The accused sent text messages to an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old girl in response to an online advertisement.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed he was communicating with a person under the age of 16 or was wilfully blind to that fact.

The court found that while the accused was reckless in continuing discussions about purchasing sexual services where it was possible the other person might be underage, the Crown failed to prove the necessary belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to taking a material benefit from a person involved in the sex trade contrary to section 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, who was in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship with the victim, encouraged her to engage in sex work, assisted with website advertisements, received gifts of clothing and jewelry from her earnings, and assaulted her on multiple occasions, including one incident where he struck her in the face with his fists while in possession of a knife.

The Crown sought four and a half years custody; the defence sought one to eighteen months.

The court imposed a sentence of 1000 days custody less 329 days of pre-trial custody credit (1.5:1 ratio), resulting in a net sentence of 671 days in a provincial reformatory, followed by 36 months probation with conditions including no-contact with the victim, a 100-meter distance requirement, weapons prohibition, and mandatory participation in counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The accused, Balwinder Dhaliwal, a key member of a criminal organization involved in stealing, re-vinning, and selling motor vehicles, was sentenced following a guilty plea.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the sophisticated nature of the operation, the significant financial value of vehicles involved, multiple victims, and the accused's substantial criminal record for similar offenses.

While the guilty plea was late, it was accepted as a sign of remorse and responsibility, saving court time.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services under s. 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court considered reasonable hypothetical scenarios, particularly one involving a youthful sex trade worker who was herself exploited and manipulated, recruiting a 17-year-old friend without financial gain.

The court found that in this hypothetical, an appropriate sentence would be two to 2.5 years, making the five-year mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate and thus a violation of s. 12.

The violation was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter due to a failure of minimal impairment.

The mandatory minimum sentence was declared of no force or effect.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80).

The Crown proved the accused was driving with a blood alcohol level of 210-240 mgs at the time of operation, nearly triple the legal limit.

The defence raised five alleged Charter breaches seeking to exclude the breath test evidence.

The court rejected all Charter breach arguments, finding: (1) any misworded approved screening device demand was technical and harmless; (2) inconsistencies regarding the accuracy check did not undermine reasonable grounds; (3) the "as soon as practicable" requirement was satisfied; (4) adequate privacy measures were provided in the cell; and (5) reasonable efforts were made to contact counsel of choice.

The court found the accused guilty.

The defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80).

The Crown sought a $1,600 fine, probation, and an 18-month driving prohibition.

The defence conceded an elevated fine was appropriate but requested a lower amount with the minimum 12-month prohibition.

The court imposed a $1,600 fine plus victim fine surcharge with 12 months to pay, 18 months probation with conditions including alcohol counselling and drinking and driving counselling, and an 18-month driving prohibition.

The court emphasized the aggravating factor of the very high blood alcohol readings and the need for sentences to reflect the high risk to public safety.

The appellant, a first-time offender, appealed his 30-day intermittent sentence for impaired driving and dangerous driving.

He argued that a custodial sentence was demonstrably unfit because no accident or injury occurred, and that the trial judge failed to adequately consider non-custodial sanctions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly emphasized denunciation and general deterrence given the serious aggravating factors, including a blood alcohol concentration of 190 mg and the presence of the appellant's wife and two young children in the vehicle.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on November 21, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on breath analysis results and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the admissibility of pre-arrest statements, the validity of the breath demand, and the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted all evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on breath readings showing a blood alcohol concentration of 88 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and expert evidence establishing impairment.

Kenneth Johnson was convicted of manslaughter after being acquitted of second-degree murder.

The sentencing decision addresses the circumstances of the assault on his roommate, Richard Skupien, which resulted in Skupien's death from a ruptured spleen and rib fractures.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the attack on a vulnerable individual in his home, and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the offender's remorse, strong family support, and particularly harsh pre-trial custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The court imposed an eight-year sentence, reduced to two years and four months after applying credit for pre-trial custody and the onerous conditions.

Three accused were tried on charges of robbery with a firearm, disguise with intent, possession of property obtained by crime, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and cannabis.

The Crown withdrew certain charges at trial.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove robbery with a firearm but established theft over $5,000.

Evidence from a recorded three-way phone call and text messages demonstrated that one accused orchestrated the theft with the store employee.

The court acquitted all accused of the drug trafficking charges due to insufficient evidence of knowledge and control, as multiple household members had access to the bedroom where drugs were found.

During a murder trial, the defence sought to file their expert pathologist's report as a numbered exhibit, which the Crown opposed.

The report detailed the pathologist's critique of the Crown's expert and offered opinions on the timing of injuries, which could support the defence's theory.

The court denied the request, citing the convention against filing expert reports as exhibits, concerns about them acting as prior consistent statements, and the risk of overemphasizing expert evidence without the full context of cross-examination.

The judge also noted the imprecision of the scientific methods for aging injuries and the potential for misuse if the report was admitted without express caveats.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit preliminary hearing testimony of a witness, Mr. Nassirnia, as substantive evidence under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (KGB application).

Mr. Nassirnia could no longer recall incidents he testified about at the preliminary hearing.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the preliminary hearing evidence lacked sufficient reliability due to the witness's apparent lack of genuine recollection, having repeatedly refreshed his memory from a police statement.

The court found that the necessity requirement was met and that sufficient indicia of reliability were present, particularly the oath and opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, and the witness's availability for cross-examination at trial.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, with a direction that Crown counsel should first attempt to refresh the witness's memory with his police statement at trial.

The Crown brought a blended application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act and the principled exception to hearsay (KGB application) to cross-examine its own witness, Michelle Paul, on prior inconsistent statements and to admit those statements as substantive evidence in a second-degree murder trial.

The witness had testified at trial but claimed inability to recall details from her prior police statement and preliminary hearing testimony.

The defence opposed, citing reliability concerns due to the witness's apparent intoxication during the police statement and arguing that some evidence constituted inadmissible propensity evidence.

The court denied the application, finding that certain details of the "Birthday Incident" were inadmissible propensity evidence, the "Phone Call" evidence did not materially differ from trial testimony, and the "Misinterpretation" evidence lacked legal relevance.

The court was not satisfied that the ends of justice warranted cross-examination or the substantive admission of the prior statements.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence raised multiple Charter arguments including arbitrary detention, improper ASD demand and testing procedures, and sought exclusion of evidence.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the Crown's evidence reliable and admissible.

The defence's bolus drinking evidence was found to be illogical, internally inconsistent, and not credible.