M. Wong

Three accused were charged jointly with first degree murder in the beating death of Zaher Nourredine and robbery of Mitchell Conery.

The Crown relied on section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for murder and section 231(5)(e) for first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter and robbery but opposed committal on first degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on first degree murder and robbery, applying the Sheppard test and finding that the evidence supported inferences of the requisite mens rea for murder and that the confinement of one victim (Conery) was a separate and distinct act from the murder of the other victim (Nourredine), satisfying the requirements of constructive first degree murder under the multiple victim scenario established in R. v. Russell.

The accused was charged with robbery, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and possession under.

The Crown's case relied on direct eyewitness identification from one victim who selected the accused from a photo line-up and identified him in court, corroborated by extensive circumstantial evidence including security video footage from multiple locations establishing a timeline of events.

The defence challenged the identification evidence as unreliable, arguing the witness description was generic and the photo line-up was flawed.

The court found the eyewitness identification credible and reliable, supported by compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance from apartment buildings and a bank showing the stolen bank card being used.

The court convicted on robbery, forcible confinement, and threatening bodily harm, conditionally staying the assault with a weapon charge as part of the same transaction as the robbery.

The Crown sought committal on first-degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code based on constructive murder arising from unlawful confinement.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the stabbing death of the victim.

The Crown argued that the victim was unlawfully confined in his bedroom following the stabbing in the living room, and that the confinement and murder formed part of the same transaction.

The defence argued that the confinement occurred after the victim was stabbed and that the victim managed to escape the apartment.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused exploited a position of dominance over the victim through confinement to justify committal on first-degree murder.

The accused was committed to stand trial on second-degree murder only.

The accused was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of possession of property obtained by fraud.

The Crown alleged that between January 2012 and September 2013, the accused orchestrated a sophisticated fraud scheme involving the deposit of worthless cheques into credit card accounts to artificially inflate credit limits, followed by coordinated purchases of high-end merchandise from Home Depot stores across the Greater Toronto Area.

The accused, self-represented with assistance of amicus curiae, claimed he had permission from cardholders to use their cards and that he was merely a middleman facilitating transactions for gamblers and others who needed quick cash.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven all essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the accused's explanations as inherently unconvincing and lacking logic.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding delay in trial, finding exceptional circumstances justified the time taken.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a recognizance that prohibited him from possessing drug paraphernalia, specifically scales.

Police stopped him for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk without lights.

During the stop, which lasted over six minutes, police conducted a criminal investigation into bail compliance without advising the defendant of his Charter rights to counsel.

The defendant was detained and questioned about scales, which he admitted to possessing.

The Crown conceded that sections 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The court applied the section 24(2) test and excluded the evidence of the scales, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, an anti-abortion activist, was charged with disobeying a court order pursuant to section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from her conduct on September 2, 2015, when she protested outside the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto carrying a sign and speaking to patients entering the clinic, attempting to persuade them not to have abortions.

The court found that her conduct breached paragraphs (c) and (h) of a 1999 injunction by disturbing and interrupting the functioning of the clinic and causing a nuisance within 500 feet of the premises.

The court distinguished the present case from a prior 2014 appeal decision where similar conduct had resulted in acquittal, finding that the evidence of disruption to clinic operations and impact on patients and staff was substantially different and more compelling.

The accused, a vice-principal at a Toronto high school, was charged with obstructing a peace officer by allegedly counselling a student to leave the school and misleading police about the student's whereabouts when police were present to execute an arrest warrant.

The court found that while the accused failed to fully disclose to police that he had seen the student in the classroom, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to obstruct the officer or that his conduct was intended to make it more difficult for police to execute their duty.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped statement given by the accused to police following his arrest.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statement, addressing issues of voluntariness and alleged violations of the accused's Charter rights under sections 10(a) and (b).

The central issue was whether police violated the accused's rights by failing to provide or offer a Tamil-speaking interpreter, thereby preventing the accused from exercising his right to counsel in a meaningful manner.

The Crown sought a ruling on the threshold admissibility of an out-of-court videotaped statement made by the deceased complainant to police regarding an alleged sexual assault.

The defence challenged admissibility on grounds of insufficient indicia of reliability, despite conceding the necessity requirement was met.

The court applied the functional approach from R. v. Khelawon and found the statement met the threshold reliability test based on inherent trustworthiness and adequate safeguards, despite the complainant's death and inability to be cross-examined.

The statement was admitted as part of the Crown's case.

A 14-year-old young person pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown sought six months open custody followed by one year probation.

Defence counsel argued that custody was unavailable as the offences did not fall within the statutory gateway provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the circumstances constituted "exceptional circumstances" under section 39(1)(d) of the YCJA, permitting a custodial sentence.

However, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order rather than open custody, finding this to be the least restrictive sentence most likely to rehabilitate the young person while holding them accountable.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of possession of firearms without a license and careless storage of firearms and ammunition.

Police executed a search warrant at a residence and found two firearms and ammunition hidden in various locations within the basement and main living area.

The accused was found in the basement in his underwear near a couch.

The Crown sought to establish constructive possession through circumstantial evidence, including the accused's proximity to the basement, personal documents bearing his name found in a safe, and scales and a cell phone near where he was found.

The court discharged the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown had failed to establish sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the accused had knowledge of or control over the firearms.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, robbery, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 20-year-old student who was abducted at gunpoint from outside his school, robbed of personal items and money, and driven to his home where the assailants attempted to enter.

The defence challenged the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of his identification of the accused, arguing the story was fanciful and improbable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his identification of the accused based on prior acquaintance, the name "Bala" (a shortened form of the accused's first name), and the circumstances of observation during the prolonged incident.

The accused was convicted on all charges except forcible confinement, which was stayed as it merged with the kidnapping conviction.