Monte MacGregor

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences.

The offences involved shooting a man in the leg over a drug debt in a residential complex, and later being found in a vehicle with a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record for firearms offences, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, difficult background, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns.

A global sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender was convicted after trial of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm and an overcapacity magazine.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years, while the offender sought two and a half to three years.

The court considered the offender's lack of prior violent or firearms record, his employment, and his compliance with bail conditions as mitigating factors, balanced against the gravity of gun crime.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm following a police takedown in a parking lot.

The police relied on information from two confidential informants to form reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The accused brought Charter applications under sections 7 and 9, alleging arbitrary detention and excessive force by police.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the police had sufficient grounds for arrest and did not use excessive force.

The court accepted the police evidence that the firearm was found in the accused's waistband and found the accused guilty of all charges.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the beating death of his wife.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the violence, the brutality of the attack, and the offender's lack of genuine remorse.

Mitigating factors were limited to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including triple-bunking and loss of in-person visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined a fit sentence was 9.5 years imprisonment, reduced to 1684 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown sought to adduce evidence of the defendant's prior discreditable conduct toward his deceased wife.

This included hearsay statements the deceased made to her sister about the defendant's abusive behaviour.

The court ruled the statements admissible under the principled approach to hearsay.

Necessity was established by the declarant's death, and threshold reliability was met based on the inherent trustworthiness of the statements, given the close relationship between the sisters, the deceased's reluctance to complain, and corroborative evidence from the deceased's daughter.

In a trial for second degree murder, the Crown sought to adduce statements made by the accused to police on the day of his wife's death.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statements, arguing they were involuntary due to oppression and intoxication, and that the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The court found that the accused had an operating mind and the statements were voluntary.

However, statements made during the six-and-a-half-hour delay between the accused's arrest and his consultation with counsel were excluded to preserve trial fairness.

Statements made prior to arrest and during subsequent video-recorded interviews were admitted.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder following the death of his wife, who died from blunt force trauma resulting in a lacerated liver.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence and that the fatal injuries were accidental.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as a fabrication, finding that he inflicted the severe beating that caused her death.

However, due to the accused's significant intoxication and the lack of evidence regarding how the assault unfolded, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the specific intent required for murder.

The accused was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

The defendant, Nicholas Walker, was charged with first-degree murder in a retrial following a Court of Appeal order.

The trial proceeded without a jury.

The Crown alleged Walker was the shooter and that the killing was planned and deliberate, stemming from prior acrimony with the victim, Clifenton Ford.

The defence primarily challenged identification and the elements of planned and deliberate murder.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence including video footage, DNA, and witness testimony, found beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker was the shooter.

The court also concluded that the murder was planned and deliberate, leading to a conviction for first-degree murder.

In a retrial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce lay opinion evidence from a restaurant owner who recognized the accused in poor-quality security footage of the shooting.

The defence opposed the admission, arguing the witness was not in a better position than the trier of fact and could not point to specific identifying features.

The court applied the Leaney test and ruled the evidence admissible, finding that the witness's long-standing acquaintance with the accused and his interactions with him at the restaurant shortly before the shooting put him in a better position than the court to make a comparison.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and breach of a peace bond following an incident at a men's shelter in Toronto.

The complainant alleged the accused grabbed her by the waist and thrust his hips into her buttocks while she was mopping.

The accused claimed he accidentally bumped into her while trying to pass by.

The court found that the surveillance video was ambiguous and did not definitively establish a sexual assault.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding the threatening statement, noting the complainant's limited English proficiency, her emotional distress at the time, and the fact that a nearby witness did not hear the alleged threat.

All three charges were dismissed.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a motion for disclosure of communications between the complainant and the CBC regarding a proposed documentary.

The Crown and third parties argued the communications were protected under s. 278 of the Criminal Code due to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found that while there was a subjective expectation of privacy, the communications regarding the scope and terms of the CBC interviews were directly relevant to the defence's O'Connor application.

The court ordered the disclosure of relevant emails and texts, excising irrelevant personal details.

Two appellants were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from a home invasion in Mississauga.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence, cell phone tower records, Blackberry Messenger text messages, and circumstantial inferences to establish identity.

The appellants challenged their convictions on various grounds, including the reasonableness of the verdicts and the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both conviction appeals, finding the trial judge properly considered the cumulative effect of the evidence and correctly applied exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Both appellants received nine-year sentences; the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals but allowed the sentence appeals in part by setting aside victim fine surcharges and adjusting presentence custody credits.

Nicholas Baig pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the stabbing death of his pregnant wife, Arianna Goberdhan.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which must be between 10 and 25 years.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the character of the offender, applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

Aggravating factors included the domestic nature of the homicide, the victim's vulnerability due to pregnancy, the brutality of the attack, the offender's lack of insight, and attempts to cover up the crime.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court imposed a parole ineligibility period of 17 years.

Erick Reid was found guilty of manslaughter following a jury trial where his accomplice was convicted of first-degree murder.

The court made findings of fact consistent with the jury's verdict, establishing Reid's involvement in a planned armed robbery where the victim was shot and killed by his accomplice.

Reid brandished a firearm to intimidate a bystander and failed to assist the dying victim.

The court considered Reid's significant criminal record, including prior firearm and violence offences, and his lack of credibility during testimony.

Aggravating factors included the planned nature of the crime, the use of firearms, the victim's vulnerability, Reid's criminal history, and his refusal to identify the shooter.

Mitigating factors included that Reid did not fire the fatal shot, his supportive family, and pre-sentence custody credit.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearm-related violence, the court sentenced Reid to 15 years imprisonment.

With a credit of 42 months for pre-sentence custody, he was sentenced to a further 11.5 years.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA sample.

This sentencing decision followed jury convictions arising from the sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old through online advertisements, hotel-based sex work, and related financial benefit offences.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code where the offences involved abuse of a person under 18, while still recognizing rehabilitation as relevant given the offenders' youth.

Applying the sentencing fact-finding principles governing mixed jury verdicts, the court concluded that some violence described by the victim could be accepted despite acquittals on trafficking and certain other counts, but not conduct underlying specific acquittals.

The court also addressed the constitutionality of mandatory minimum penalties and imposed individualized custodial sentences, pre-sentence custody credits, probation for one offender, and ancillary DNA, firearms prohibition, no-contact, SOIRA, and victim fine surcharge orders.

Following a five-day trial, the court found both defendants guilty of breaking and entering into a dwelling to commit an indictable offence (home invasion).

The defendants and a third party, armed with firearms and other weapons, broke into an occupied residential home at night.

During the struggle with the homeowner, one of the intruders was killed.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences of 9 years for each defendant, less pre-trial custody credits, resulting in sentences of 8 years 9 months for one defendant and 8 years 5 months for the other.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including weapons prohibitions and DNA sampling orders.

The Crown charged two defendants with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The case involved circumstantial evidence of identity, including BlackBerry Messenger communications recovered from the deceased intruder's phone.

The court admitted hearsay evidence under the present intentions exception and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown established that the defendants were members of a conspiracy to commit the break-in through analysis of cryptic text messages, DNA evidence, and circumstantial connections.

Both defendants were convicted.

The defendant was charged with "over 80" (care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol above the legal limit).

The Crown's evidence showed the defendant was stopped by police in an area known for prostitution and drug offences, based solely on the vehicle "circling" the area.

Following the stop, the defendant was subjected to a roadside screening device demand, which he failed, leading to arrest and breath samples showing 100 and 90 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (legal limit: 80).

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the initial stop under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found the stop was arbitrary and violated the defendant's Charter rights, and excluded the evidence obtained as a result.

The appellant appealed his convictions related to a drive-by shooting, arguing that the trial judge's factual findings were unreasonable.

Specifically, he challenged the findings that the stolen vehicle apprehended in a church parking lot was the same vehicle involved in the shooting, and that he was in the vehicle during the incident, citing differing evidence on the number of occupants and insufficient fingerprint and saliva evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably relied on a constellation of direct and circumstantial evidence to support his conclusions and eliminate alternative inferences.

This is a voir dire ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Anthony Alas, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The primary issue was whether the statements were the product of an atmosphere of oppression, specifically due to the police's alleged failure to provide the accused with stomach medication.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, concluding that the accused's will was not overborne by police conduct or the circumstances.

The court considered the accused's mental state, the absence of threats or inducements (including any suggestion regarding his partner's potential arrest), and the presence of oppressive circumstances.

Despite some concerns about how the accused's medical needs were handled, the court determined that the overall police conduct was polite and accommodating, and the interview was calm and non-confrontational.