Monica Samir Aboul Makarm Gharabaway

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought a Charter application to exclude text messages extracted from a seized cell phone, alleging multiple s. 8 breaches.

The court dismissed arguments that the police failed to file timely Reports to Justice, conducted an unlawful warrantless search during intake, and relied on a facially invalid warrant.

Although the Crown conceded a minor s. 8 breach because the police retrieved the phone from a locker 25 minutes after the warrant's time window expired, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was minimal and the evidence highly reliable.

The applicants, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 37 months.

The court deducted periods of defence-caused delay, bringing the net delay below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found that exceptional circumstances, including a complainant's disruptive conduct at the preliminary inquiry, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overall complexity of the multi-accused case, justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

Kadah Dematas was convicted of multiple charges related to a home invasion and shooting, including discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (violent nature, youth record, lack of employment), and mitigating factors (no prior adult record, young age, improved conduct in custody, genuine remorse, family support, lesser role in the shooting).

The court also addressed enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, including "Summers credits" and "Duncan credits" for harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Dematas's asthma.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with significant credit for time served, resulting in a balance of 1 year remaining.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on multiple serious charges, including firearms offences, fraud, and human trafficking-related assaults.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and a significantly altered release plan, entitling the applicant to a fresh bail hearing.

Despite finding the applicant met his onus on primary grounds, the court dismissed the application, concluding that detention was necessary on secondary grounds (public safety, including the complainant's safety) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), citing the applicant's extensive criminal history, defiance of law, the gravity and strength of the Crown's case on recent charges, and the weakness of the proposed release plan.

The accused, JF, was tried on nine counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, choking, assault with weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, and robbery.

The complainant, AB, did not appear at trial, and her preliminary inquiry testimony was admitted.

The defence challenged AB's credibility regarding her relationship with JF, her pregnancy, and inconsistencies with forensic evidence.

The court found AB's testimony unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including JF's credible account and the lack of corroborating forensic findings.

JF was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, Ricardo Davidson, sought release on a recognizance with house arrest terms after being in custody since July 30, 2019, facing multiple charges including sex trafficking, firearm possession, threatening, and assault.

This was his first bail hearing, and it was a reverse onus case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Davidson failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was not justified on secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The proposed release plan with a surety was deemed insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of re-offending or interfering with justice, given the gravity of the charges, the strength of the Crown's case, and the accused's criminal record.

The court also addressed and dismissed arguments regarding pre-trial delay due to a joint trial and the risk of COVID-19 in detention.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and attempting to obstruct justice arising from an alleged non-consensual sexual encounter and an interrupted 911 call.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence as contradictory, illogical, and implausible, but held that disbelief of the accused did not relieve the Crown of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the W.(D.) framework.

Although the court accepted much of the complainant’s evidence and found it likely that a sexual assault occurred, it identified material inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and improbabilities going to the core events inside the apartment.

Those concerns left the court with a reasonable doubt on both counts, resulting in acquittals.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery of convenience stores and two counts of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, committed the robberies while armed with a knife or a snow shovel.

The court found that the offender's mental illness did not mitigate his moral culpability as there was no causal link to the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and institutional lockdowns.

The two accused were charged with multiple firearm and assault offences following a home invasion where the complainant was shot in the neck.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, DNA, and gunshot residue, to identify the accused as two of the three perpetrators.

The court dismissed a lost evidence application regarding unseized video surveillance.

Ultimately, the court found one accused guilty as a party to the offences based on DNA and circumstantial evidence connecting him to the scene.

However, the court acquitted the other accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence raised a reasonable doubt about his presence during the shooting.

The accused, Shou Chen, was convicted of second-degree murder.

This decision concerns the sentencing, specifically the parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and jury recommendations, as required by the Criminal Code.

Despite the Crown seeking a 12-year parole ineligibility period, the court found a compelling causal link between the accused's late-onset schizophrenia and the offence.

This mental disorder, combined with the accused's lack of prior record and the jury's recommendation for the minimum, led the court to impose the mandatory minimum 10-year parole ineligibility period.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA databank submission were also made.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a mistrial application after his forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, revised his opinion, no longer supporting a "not criminally responsible" (NCRMD) defence on a balance of probabilities.

The defence sought a mistrial to find another expert psychiatrist and secure Legal Aid funding.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a mistrial is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted.

The judge found that the change in expert opinion, partly attributable to defence counsel's delay in providing relevant reports, did not cause actual prejudice or unfairness, as the defence retained strategic options for presenting its case.

The court also noted the case's long history of defence-related delays.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, objected to the admissibility of recognition/identification evidence from a Crown witness, Mr. Wan Peng Mei.

The Crown sought to have Mr. Mei identify the accused from surveillance video footage based on his prior acquaintance.

The defence argued that the witness was in no better position than the jury due to poor image quality.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding that Mr. Mei had significant prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him from the video, despite the image quality.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice, with appropriate jury instructions to mitigate risks of unreliability.

The accused, Kadah Dematas and Christopher Lucas, brought motions for directed verdicts on multiple charges, including attempted murder, discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, stemming from a home invasion and shooting.

The court granted directed verdicts of not guilty for attempted murder and possession of a firearm knowing it was obtained by crime, finding insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill or a reasonable prospect of conviction for the latter.

However, the court denied directed verdicts for discharge firearm with intent, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, concluding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to infer guilt for these general and specific intent offences (excluding the specific intent to kill).

The court also found a common purpose among the intruders.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and dangerous operation of a vehicle, after firing 13 shots into a residential townhouse and subsequently engaging in a high-speed police pursuit.

A 10-year-old child sleeping inside the home was struck by a bullet.

The court dismissed a Kienapple application regarding the discharge firearm and aggravated assault counts, finding insufficient legal nexus.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, the court imposed a global sentence of 12.5 years imprisonment, less 4 years of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 8.5 years left to serve.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDEA.

The offences occurred outside a concert.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes in Toronto, while also considering the offender's youth, lack of related record, and rehabilitative prospects.

A global sentence of 4 years was imposed, less 51 days for pretrial custody and 3 months for restrictive bail conditions.

Simeon George-McCool was convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking in MDMA and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial suspended sentence.

The court considered general sentencing principles, mitigating factors (youthful offender, no prior record, family support, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, employment prospects, father of a child) and aggravating factors (Schedule I drug, trafficking context).

The court found that mitigating factors outweighed aggravating factors and that exceptional circumstances justified a non-custodial sentence.

A suspended sentence with a two-year probationary period and various conditions was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

This criminal trial concerned multiple charges, including aggravated assault and firearm offences, stemming from a shooting incident where a child was injured.

The court, sitting without a jury, evaluated circumstantial evidence primarily focused on identity.

One defendant was found guilty of numerous charges based on a confession, corroborating video evidence, and flight from police, while the other defendant was acquitted on all counts due to insufficient evidence and unreliable expert testimony regarding fingerprints.

The offender, a 58-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of historical sexual interference, sexual touching, and simple assault against a child who was between five and seven years old at the time.

The offences occurred approximately 30 years ago while the offender was in a position of trust living with the child's mother.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the significant impact on the victim, but considered the offender's age, poor health, and lack of criminal record as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

The accused, E.G., was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant, E.G.'s stepdaughter, alleged sexual assaults occurred when she was 15-16 years old, which she initially reported in 1998 but recanted the next day under pressure from her mother.

She re-reported the allegations in 2014 after years of therapy.

E.G. denied the assaults, and his testimony was corroborated by his wife, daughter, and a neighbour, who described a positive home environment and the complainant entrusting her children to E.G. and her mother for extended periods, including international travel.

The court considered the complainant's delayed disclosure and inconsistencies in her testimony, as well as the defence evidence.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the assaults occurred and acquitted E.G.

The defendant was charged with three offences—Robbery, Disguise with Intent, and Administer Noxious Substance—arising from a home invasion at a basement apartment on Dupont Street, Toronto on September 4, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on cell phone records placing the defendant in the area and evidence that he had rented the vehicle used by the perpetrators.

The defendant testified that he was merely providing transportation to acquaintances and was unaware of their criminal intentions.

Despite circumstantial evidence suggesting the defendant's involvement, including items found in the vehicle proximate to the driver's seat, the court found that a reasonable doubt had been raised regarding his participation in the robbery.