Michelle Rumble

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery using a restricted firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm, and related weapons offences.

The offences involved targeted violence against a civil litigation lawyer and her associate to intimidate them from pursuing civil claims against a tow truck operator.

The offender robbed the associate at gunpoint and later fired seven shots into the law office during business hours.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to a total of 12 years in custody, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including discharging a firearm at a police officer during a gas station shootout and engaging in a 10-hour armed standoff at his boobytrapped home.

The police seized a massive arsenal of firearms, ammunition, and explosives from the residence.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the offences, the offender's prior firearms record, and the breach of prohibition orders against mitigating factors including guilty pleas and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 18 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant was charged with possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (threatening death or bodily harm) and possession of ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order.

The court found the witness's testimony regarding the alleged threat unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential motives, leading to an acquittal on the first charge.

However, regarding the ammunition charge, the court accepted expert testimony that the modified bullets met the definition of "ammunition" under the Criminal Code, despite not being test-fired, distinguishing the case from R. v. Wilson.

The defendant was found guilty of possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The applicant sought a bail review, arguing a material change in circumstances due to delayed medical surgery while in custody and a new release plan including electronic monitoring.

The court found no material change, noting that the correctional centre had taken steps to schedule the surgery and could provide adequate post-operative care.

The court further held that even if a material change existed, bail would be denied on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of breaches, and the extremely serious nature of the kidnapping and robbery charges.

Bail was denied.

The accused applied for a review of her detention order on charges including robbery with a firearm and kidnapping, arguing a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with two sureties and a delay in medical treatment.

The court admitted the new sureties as fresh evidence but found the accused failed to meet her reverse onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court held that the proposed release plan could not adequately address the risk of reoffending given the accused's extensive criminal record and history of breaching bail conditions.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant, Rashon Mair, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace.

Counsel argued for release based on material changes in circumstance: completion of a prior sentence, discharge of more serious charges from a preliminary hearing, and the COVID-19 pandemic impacting his health (asthma) and trial timeliness.

The Crown conceded a material change but maintained concerns on the secondary ground (public safety/likelihood of committing further offences), citing Mair's prior breach of recognizance and questioning the sureties' suitability.

The court acknowledged the material changes, including the relevance of COVID-19, but found the proposed release plan, involving his parents as sureties under house arrest, insufficient to address the substantial risk of Mair committing further offences or interfering with justice, given his history of violence and breach of prior bail conditions.

The application was dismissed, but leave was granted for a further application with a more robust plan.

The accused was charged with breaching a probation order by contacting her daughter via email four times between May 22 and July 14, 2019.

The Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was bound by the probation order with the alleged term and that she was the author of the emails.

The accused claimed she sent the emails merely to see her daughter's name and did not expect them to be received because she believed the email accounts were inactive.

The court rejected this explanation as lacking credibility and found that the contents of the emails and the pattern of repeated messages demonstrated the accused intended them to be received.

The court found the accused guilty of the breach.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender and long-term offender application following the offender's convictions for a series of violent, random attacks on women, including robbery, attempted sexual assault, and break and enter.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the offender's risk of violent re-offence was moderate and did not meet the high threshold of intractability required for such designations.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years and 6 months net after accounting for pre-sentence custody and enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm following an unprovoked attack on two strangers outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop in Richmond Hill.

The offender stabbed both victims with a blade, causing serious injuries including stab wounds to vital organs.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault and a concurrent 6-month sentence for assault causing bodily harm, with credit for pretrial custody, lockdowns, and restrictive bail conditions.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The accused was charged after responding to an online escort advertisement used in a police sting targeting persons seeking sexual services from minors, and after continuing a text exchange in which the purported sex worker stated she was 15.

Applying the Supreme Court’s framework in Morrison, the court held the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually believed, or was wilfully blind to, the person being underage.

The court found wilful blindness was not established because the accused asked questions directed to age, and the evidence left a reasonable doubt whether he believed the stated age or merely proceeded recklessly in the face of the risk.

Because recklessness was insufficient for luring mens rea, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

During a proceeding for a carjacking and shooting, the Crown sought to introduce non-expert recognition evidence from a police officer to identify one of the accused from security video.

The officer's prior interactions with the accused occurred mostly when the accused was a child, were brief, and were undocumented.

A subsequent interaction was specifically directed by a superior officer for the purpose of identification.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the officer lacked sufficient prior acquaintance and that the post-offence contact was tainted by its investigative purpose.

The applicant, R.D., sought to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless cell phone search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The police conducted a "cell phone dump" based on alleged exigent circumstances to prevent data loss, which was later used to obtain a search warrant based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) containing false information about security applications.

The court found no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search and that the ITO contained inaccurate information, constituting serious state misconduct.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected privacy interests outweighed society's interest in the admission of the highly probative evidence, leading to its exclusion.

A 19-year-old offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm, discharge of a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm while prohibited, and failure to comply with probation.

The offender fired a sawed-off shotgun at an occupied residential garage in Markham.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, less 8.5 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 6 years and 3.5 months.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as the primary sentencing objectives, while acknowledging limited rehabilitative prospects due to the offender's extensive violent criminal history despite his youth.

This ruling addresses a Crown application for voluntariness of a post-arrest videotaped statement and a defence motion to exclude the statement under sections 10(a) and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defence failed to establish a section 10(a) Charter violation.

The statement was deemed admissible, as the descriptions of the offences provided to the defendant were found to be unobjectionable and sufficient to convey the nature of his jeopardy, despite his claims of misunderstanding.

The accused was convicted of 15 offences arising from a domestic violence incident in which he entered his former spouse's home with a loaded, sawed-off shotgun with the intent to compel her to take him to two men he intended to kill.

The victim demonstrated remarkable bravery in refusing to comply despite being threatened with death and having the shotgun pointed at her temple.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less 14 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 70 months to be served.

The sentence reflects the gravity of the offences, the use of a loaded firearm, the planning and preparation involved, and the significant threat posed to the victim and the community, while considering mitigating factors including the accused's role as a good father and genuine remorse.

The York Regional Police and the Crown brought a certiorari application to quash five defence subpoenas issued for a preliminary hearing.

The subpoenas sought to compel police officers to attend for discovery and to produce documents related to the policy of not audio recording booking areas.

The court held that while discovery is a legitimate ancillary purpose of a preliminary hearing, subpoenas cannot be used as a disguised attempt to obtain disclosure, circumventing the Stinchcombe/O’Connor regime.

The court quashed the subpoenas as they pertained to the production of documents but ordered that four police witnesses attend for discovery purposes, subject to the preliminary hearing justice's discretion to limit unreasonable discovery.

The accused was charged with 15 offences arising from an incident on February 5, 2018, where he allegedly confronted his former spouse at her home with a loaded sawed-off shotgun, threatened to kill her and two men, and forcibly confined her.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the credible testimony of the complainant, corroborated by independent witness evidence, forensic firearms analysis, and circumstantial evidence including a shotgun shell recovered from the scene.

The accused's defence was that he possessed only a pellet gun and had no knowledge of the shotgun or ammunition.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and the accused's testimony to be illogical, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court convicted on all counts.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence of past threats made by the accused against a former boyfriend of the complainant.

The defence conceded some relevance but argued the details were dated and disputed, potentially diverting the trial from central issues.

The court found the evidence directly relevant to the complainant's credibility and the accused's animus, which were central issues at trial.

The court determined the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and, noting the judge-alone trial format, allowed the Crown to proceed with the evidence.

The defendant was found guilty after trial of two breaches of recognizance arising from a single event of being at a hotel overnight.

The Crown sought 30 days custody on each count served concurrently, while the defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, reporting conditions, counselling as required, and community service, considering the defendant's strong employment and professional prospects as a professional engineer, the collateral consequences of a conviction on his career, and the fact that he had already spent the equivalent of five days in custody.

The accused faced 22 charges relating to three random attacks on women and a scheme involving fake Craigslist job postings.

The Crown alleged the accused targeted women for kidnapping and sexual assault.

The court found the accused guilty of multiple offences, including robbery, attempt kidnapping, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and attempt sexual assault in relation to the physical attacks, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence, DNA, and the doctrine of recent possession.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempt kidnapping and attempt sexual assault regarding the Craigslist scheme, finding the acts did not go beyond mere preparation and the specific intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.