Michelle K. Fuerst

The defendant, C.W., was charged with second-degree murder or, alternatively, manslaughter, following the death of his 14-month-old niece, C.L., while she was in his care.

The Crown alleged that C.W. inflicted blunt force trauma to the child's head, possibly combined with violent shaking, due to stress and the child's crying.

C.W. testified that the injuries were caused by an accidental drop.

The court, applying the R. v. W.(D.) instruction, found C.W.'s testimony, despite inconsistencies and admitted lies, raised a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

Medical experts could not definitively exclude the possibility that the injuries, including a skull fracture, extensive retinal hemorrhages, and retinoschisis, were caused by an accidental fall from a caregiver's arms, acknowledging the evolving nature of medical knowledge in this controversial area.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove unlawful causation beyond a reasonable doubt and found the defendant not guilty.

Zhi Xin Lin pleaded guilty to production and possession for trafficking of ketamine.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial operation, the harmful nature of ketamine, and the residential location of the illegal lab.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, guilty plea, cooperation with police, remorse, and impending deportation.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 10-year sentence, applying credit for pre-sentence custody and minimal credit for time under house arrest due to lack of information on its impact.

A net sentence of 9 years and 4 months was imposed.

A criminal trial for second-degree murder resulted in a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

The accused, suffering from schizophrenia, committed a fatal stabbing while experiencing severe delusions and hallucinations, believing the victim was possessed by a demon.

Expert psychiatric testimony, accepted by the court, established that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or knowing it was morally wrong under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The matter was referred to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

Clyde Sollows pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his 76-year-old father, Walter Sollows.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age, the breach of trust, and elements of planning and deliberation, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, cooperation with police, and the history of abuse by the father.

The joint submission for a parole ineligibility period of seventeen years was accepted, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition orders.

Fabricio Calderon was sentenced for a home invasion involving the assault of residents and intent to steal.

Despite going to the wrong address, serious injuries were inflicted.

The court considered the objectives of sentencing for home invasions (protection, general deterrence, denunciation) and specific deterrence given the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Aggravating factors included the nighttime perpetration, weapon use, reference to a gun, severe victim injuries, high planning, group enterprise, and the defendant's prior armed robbery conviction and lifetime weapons prohibition.

Mitigating factors were a guilty plea and an apology.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary term, reduced by 45 months for pre-sentencing custody, leaving 51 months to serve, concurrent on another count.

Non-communication, DNA, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders were also issued.

The Crown sought to admit a video statement made by the accused, Chak-Lam Wong, in a second-degree murder trial concerning the death of his 14-month-old niece.

The defence contested its admissibility, arguing it was not voluntary due to inadequate cautioning, misleading information from police regarding the right to silence, and an accusatorial interview style, despite the accused not being under arrest or detention.

The court found that Wong was objectively a suspect at the time of the interview and was not properly cautioned.

Despite speaking with duty counsel, the police officer's erroneous advice about the right to silence created confusion and misled Wong about his jeopardy.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the prolonged and aggressive questioning, the court found a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the statement and dismissed the Crown's application for its admission.

The offender was sentenced for sexual assault against a victim who was his adopted sister, having joined the family at age 13.

The offence occurred when the victim blacked out after drinking with the offender and woke to find him touching her.

The court considered the familial breach of trust as a significant aggravating factor and the offender's first offender status and guilty plea as mitigating factors.

A joint submission for sentencing was accepted.

Richard Dowdell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court determined the parole ineligibility period, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion, and the brutal nature of the attack, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's immediate admissions, guilty plea, remorse, and long-standing mental illness (Bipolar disorder with psychosis).

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's mental state, ultimately imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility for 12 years, rejecting the Crown's request for 14 years.

Ertug Direkoglu pleaded guilty to multiple counts of commercial drug trafficking.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, sentencing Direkoglu to a global term of eight years in jail, less three years pre-trial custody credit, leaving five years to be served concurrently to an existing sentence.

Aggravating factors included a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1993, indicating prior involvement in the drug trade.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas, which demonstrated remorse and saved significant court time, and the availability of family support upon release.

The sentence also included a lifetime s. 109 weapons prohibition order, a DNA order on specific drug counts, and a $200 victim surcharge.

Steven Byford pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of Darryl MacDougall, his mother's domestic partner, following a domestic argument where Byford stabbed MacDougall three times with a steak knife.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, multiple stab wounds, and the domestic context, alongside significant mitigating factors such as Byford's guilty plea, youth, lack of prior record, positive pre-sentence report, and low risk of reoffending.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 16 months in jail, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's rehabilitative potential and psychological vulnerabilities.

A 17.5-year-old young person pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining whether to impose an adult or youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The Crown sought an adult sentence of life imprisonment, while the defence argued for a youth sentence comprising time served and conditional supervision.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the young person's background (including a toxic relationship with the victim, substance abuse, and the impact of her mother's death), and her significant rehabilitative progress while in custody.

Professional assessments unanimously recommended a youth sentence, citing the young person's developmental vulnerability and the potential negative impact of an adult correctional facility.

Applying the YCJA's principles of accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration, the court found that a youth sentence of sufficient length would hold the young person accountable.

Consequently, the Crown's application for an adult sentence was dismissed, and a youth sentence of seven years was imposed, consisting of four years in custody (crediting three years for pre-sentencing detention plus one additional year) followed by three years of conditional supervision, along with a weapons prohibition order.

The accused, Erik Johnson, was sentenced for a serious offence that caused life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered the accused's long criminal record, including previous acts of violence, as an aggravating factor, noting issues with self-control and anger.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expression of remorse, and efforts to address a substance abuse problem.

The court imposed a high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

This decision outlines the sentencing of Erik Johnson for a serious violent offence that resulted in life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's extensive criminal record with prior violence and issues with self-control.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expressed remorse, and efforts to address substance abuse.

A high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail was imposed, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit the murders of two victims in a planned home invasion arranged by a third party seeking the deaths of her parents.

The accused played a pivotal role by recruiting a shooter, arranging transportation, and driving armed participants to the residence while coordinating entry.

The conspiracy culminated in execution-style shootings that killed one victim and seriously injured the other.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the calculated nature of the plot and the accused’s extensive firearms record and prior murder conviction.

The accused was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment concurrent to an existing life sentence, with no credit for pre-sentence custody and with delayed parole eligibility requiring service of half the sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 involving more than 30 victims and losses totalling approximately $285,234 over a four‑year period.

Many victims were seniors who paid for doors, windows, renovation work, or loans that were never delivered or repaid.

The court emphasized that large‑scale fraud is a serious offence where general and specific deterrence and denunciation are paramount.

Aggravating factors included the duration of the scheme, the number and vulnerability of victims, the calculated conduct, and the absence of restitution.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of two years and issued a stand‑alone restitution order but declined to impose probation or a DNA order.

The applicant sought judicial screening under s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code for a jury hearing to reduce the 25‑year parole ineligibility period imposed following a conviction for first‑degree murder.

The court considered both the statutory filing deadlines under s. 745.6 and the substantive criteria under s. 745.63(1), including the applicant’s character, institutional conduct, nature of the offence, victim impact statements, and risk of recidivism.

The application was found to be filed outside the statutory time limits and therefore procedurally barred.

In any event, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the parole ineligibility period given the brutal sexually motivated murder, prior sexual violence, limited rehabilitation efforts, denial of responsibility, and ongoing risk factors.

The application was dismissed at the screening stage and the applicant was prohibited from making another application under s. 745.6(1).

Following guilty pleas to sexual interference, child luring, and making child pornography involving a 15‑year‑old complainant, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention.

Extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence established that the offender suffered from antisocial personality disorder with psychopathic traits, severe substance dependence, and a high actuarial risk of violent and sexual recidivism.

The court found the offence of sexual interference constituted a serious personal injury offence and that the offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing failure to restrain conduct and a likelihood of causing injury or severe psychological harm in the future.

Although one statutory pathway for dangerous offender status based on persistent aggressive behaviour was not proven, the criteria under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code were satisfied.

The court concluded that neither a determinate sentence nor a long‑term supervision order would adequately protect the public and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder in the killing of his intimate partner.

The court was required to determine the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under ss. 745 and 745.4 of the Criminal Code, considering the offender’s character, the circumstances of the offence, and the jury’s recommendation.

The evidence established that the offender repeatedly struck the victim with a baseball bat in her home and subsequently attempted to access her bank account while leaving her gravely injured.

Aggravating factors included the brutality of the attack, the breach of trust in an intimate relationship, and the offender’s post‑offence conduct.

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for fifteen years.

The applicant sought a Rowbotham order directing the Attorney General or Legal Aid Ontario to fund counsel for pending criminal prosecutions involving multiple marijuana production and trafficking charges, or alternatively a stay of proceedings until funding was provided.

Legal Aid had refused coverage on financial grounds.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he lacked the means to retain private counsel, noting inconsistencies in his financial disclosure, undisclosed joint bank accounts, and evidence suggesting a potential interest in property owned by a person with whom he maintained a close relationship.

The court further held that the applicant had not demonstrated that representation by counsel was essential to a fair trial.

The Rowbotham application was therefore dismissed.

During a criminal jury trial, the Crown sought to put prior testimony from a previous trial to a witness during re‑examination.

Defence counsel had suggested in cross‑examination that the witness’s account evolved after discussions with others following the complainant’s death.

The court considered whether the cross‑examination raised an allegation of recent fabrication that would permit the Crown to introduce prior consistent testimony.

Applying the principles discussed in R. v. Ellard, the court found it was unclear that the prior testimony pre‑dated the alleged point of fabrication.

The Crown was therefore not permitted to put the testimony from the first trial to the witness, though re‑examination on the witness’s January testimony was allowed.