M. Wyszomierska

The accused, Roydel Ramsay-Morris, was charged with multiple firearm-related offences following the execution of two search warrants.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no breach of s. 10(a) (right to be informed of reason for arrest).

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) (right to counsel) due to significant delay in providing rights to counsel and a lack of privacy during the initial call to counsel.

Applying the Grant test for exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's Charter-protected rights outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the loaded firearm and associated ammunition were excluded as evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

This decision concerns the sentencing of three defendants involved in a home invasion that resulted in a death and injury.

Trevor Kotzma and Michael Rodgers pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while Alexander Nicholas Mahon-Fernandes pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the violence inflicted, and the profound impact on victims.

Mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, were also weighed.

For Mahon-Fernandes, his lack of prior criminal record and significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail were particularly noted.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions for Kotzma and Rodgers, and imposed a penitentiary sentence for Mahon-Fernandes, slightly less than the Crown's request, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence despite his first-offender status.

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 offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, flight from police, and possession of a prohibited firearm while prohibited.

He fled from police in a vehicle and on foot, discarding a loaded handgun with a removed serial number.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to four years in custody, leaving 22 months and 15 days to serve after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence arose from an incident at Lawrence Square Mall on March 19, 2019, where the offender carried a loaded restricted firearm into a busy shopping mall during afternoon hours and produced it during a physical altercation.

The offender did not admit that his firearm discharged the round that struck the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of three years less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, additional credit for lockdown conditions, and further credit for COVID-19 confinement, resulting in 333 days remaining to be served, followed by 24 months probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder after being pressured by co-accused to help locate the victim, who was subsequently shot and killed by one of the co-accused.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 5.5 years, reduced to 18 months after crediting 48 months for pre-trial custody and lockdown conditions.

The court noted the accused's cooperation with the Crown, his youth, Indigenous background, and lack of prior adult record as mitigating factors.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused of first-degree murder and committing him only on second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the judge committed jurisdictional error by ignoring inferences favourable to the Crown and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court agreed, finding the preliminary inquiry judge erred by drawing an inference favourable to the accused regarding the interaction with the victim, and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of planning, such as the accused's change of clothing and pre-arranged taxi escape.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal on first-degree murder.

Criminal trial involving charges of assault and uttering threats against two defendants arising from allegations of child abuse occurring between November 1 and December 23, 2016.

The prosecution relied primarily on testimony from two teenage witnesses, one of whom was a close friend of the family.

The court found credibility issues with the witnesses' evidence, particularly regarding exaggeration and inconsistencies.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide necessaries of life, assault, and uttering threats.

The fail to provide necessaries charges were dismissed on application for directed verdict.

The court found the defendants guilty of two assault charges but acquitted them of the remaining charges.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondents on charges of first degree murder.

The preliminary inquiry judge had committed one respondent for second degree murder and the other for accessory after the fact, concluding there was 'no evidence' of planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by concluding there was no evidence, rather than insufficient evidence, given the circumstantial evidence of the respondents following the deceased and shooting him.

The application was granted, the discharges quashed, and the matter remitted with a direction to commit both respondents for first degree murder.

The offender, Matthew Cosmo Deiaco, pleaded guilty to several human trafficking and related offences, including trafficking in persons, receiving material benefit from an offence, confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and using an imitation firearm.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 9 years, while the defence proposed 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 4 years, 4.5 months.

The judge considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the extensive control exercised by the offender, the violence used during the victim's escape, and the offender's significant criminal record and lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing, sexual abuse, and a guilty plea that saved court time and spared victims from testifying.

However, enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions was denied due to a lack of evidence regarding negative impact and the offender's record of misconduct while incarcerated.

A lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order for life were also imposed.

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife, possession of a knife for a dangerous purpose, and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence from the victim and a witness who called 911.

The victim could not identify the assailants.

The witness provided identification through a 911 call but later testified he only "vaguely" identified the accused based on information from a third party rather than direct observation.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to multiple factors including the witness's drug use at the time, significant discrepancies in physical descriptions (particularly height), inconsistencies between the 911 call and trial testimony, and the fleeting nature of the observation.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant sought a determination on the constitutionality of section 85(4) of the Criminal Code, which mandates consecutive sentences for using a firearm during an indictable offence, arguing it violates section 12 of the Charter by imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that section 85(4) was unconstitutional, as its "stacking effect" would lead to grossly disproportionate sentences for the applicant and reasonable hypothetical offenders, and could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of section 85(3), finding it severable.

Sean Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and seven counts of robbery, including home invasions and convenience store robberies, committed over six weeks in 2012.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the sophistication and planning of the offences, victim vulnerability, use of weapons (including a discharged shotgun), and the significant impact on victims.

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of offences), genuine remorse, family support, and efforts towards rehabilitation in custody.

The court applied principles of totality and parity, imposing a global sentence of nine years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in three years and six and a half months remaining.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and use of an imitation firearm after robbing an escort in her motel room.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victim, the use of an imitation firearm, and the fact that the offender was on statutory release for similar offences.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 3 years and 1 day in the penitentiary, granting enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to frequent institutional lock-downs.

At a preliminary inquiry into charges of attempted murder and weapons offences, the Crown sought to ask the alleged victim to make an in-dock identification of the accused.

The defence objected, arguing that the probative value of such identification was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that while in-dock identifications have minimal evidentiary value, particularly where the witness did not know the accused prior to the incident and was less certain in a prior photo lineup, the evidence was admissible at the preliminary inquiry stage.

The court distinguished between the preliminary inquiry context, where the Crown's case must be assessed at its highest, and the trial context, where a trial judge might exclude such evidence to protect a jury from undue prejudice.

The defendant was charged with assault following an incident in a Toronto apartment.

Three independent witnesses observed from across the street what they described as the defendant repeatedly striking the complainant about the face and head.

The defendant and complainant testified that the incident involved only a heated verbal argument that escalated into brief physical contact, with the complainant pushing the defendant and the defendant restraining her without striking her.

The court resolved the credibility conflict by finding the three rooftop witnesses credible and reliable, concluding that their contextual remove from the parties enhanced rather than prejudiced their reliability.

The defendant was found guilty of assault, with the court rejecting any defence of self-defence as the force used was objectively excessive.

The accused applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to a Part VI intercept authorization, alleging a violation of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The investigation stemmed from an armed robbery at a pawn shop where the owner was shot.

The applicants argued the information to obtain (ITO) relied on unreliable confidential informant information and that police failed to exhaust alternative investigative methods.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, even excluding the contested informant information, the remaining evidence—including DNA matches and association evidence—provided reasonable grounds for the authorization.

A supplementary application regarding police obtaining contact information from Ontario Works without a warrant was also dismissed.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

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.

During a jury trial for murder, the defence sought to cross‑examine the deceased’s daughters about threatening phone calls, visits by unidentified individuals, and safety precautions allegedly taken due to the accused’s drug‑related associations.

The defence argued the evidence was relevant to show animus against the accused and challenge the credibility of their testimony regarding the relationship between the accused and the deceased.

The Crown objected, arguing the questioning was an indirect attempt to introduce previously excluded third‑party suspect evidence.

The court held that while defence evidence may be excluded only where its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, the proposed cross‑examination carried a significant risk of inviting the jury to speculate that unidentified drug associates committed the murder.

The court therefore ruled the prejudicial effect outweighed the limited probative value and prohibited the cross‑examination.

In a second-degree murder prosecution, the Crown sought to admit antemortem hearsay statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding the accused’s drug use, theft, and deterioration of their relationship, as well as evidence of prior discreditable conduct.

The court considered the admissibility of the statements under traditional state-of-mind exceptions and the principled approach to hearsay, assessing necessity and threshold reliability under authorities including R. v. Khelawon.

Most statements from close family members and trusted confidants were admitted as evidence of the deceased’s state of mind and the relationship context relevant to motive and identity.

Statements from casual acquaintances lacking sufficient indicia of reliability were excluded.

Evidence of the accused’s drug use and related conduct was largely admitted as contextual relationship evidence, while certain items, including a prior push and some duplicative or prejudicial evidence, were excluded.