Nancy J. Spies

The accused was charged with eight counts including human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking, procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, uttering threats, assault, and assault by choking.

The Crown alleged the accused violently trafficked the complainant into the sex trade over approximately three weeks in April-May 2023, controlling her movements, finances, and communications while directing her to provide sexual services at hotels across the GTA and Barrie.

The court found the complainant's core evidence credible and reliable, corroborated by hotel records, Uber records, bank records, surveillance footage, and cryptocurrency purchase records.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person the complainant knew as "Troubles" and that he recruited, transported, harboured, and exploited the complainant for the purpose of providing sexual services.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The court sentenced Shane Campbell following his guilty plea to three firearms offences arising from a gunfight in a Toronto residential neighbourhood.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, Campbell’s personal background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors considered.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight-and-one-half years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also recognizing Campbell’s remorse, family support, and the impact of systemic racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court considered whether Dexter Peters was a party to a violent gunpoint robbery committed by his younger half-brother, J.M., in Toronto.

The Crown alleged Peters conspired with J.M. or aided and abetted the robbery, relying on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, the presence of a GPS tracker on the victim’s car, and Peters’ conduct before, during, and after the offence.

The defence argued there were reasonable inferences consistent with innocence, including that Peters was unaware of J.M.’s plan and did not assist in the robbery.

The court found the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peters was a party to the offence, emphasizing the need for more than mere presence at the scene.

Peters was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, Tyler Willan, was charged with arson as an aider under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, for assisting in the burning of a Honda Accord used in a murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including video chronology of the Honda and Willan's Outlander, the purchase of gas in a Jerry Can, and the movements of the alleged perpetrators (Male 1 and Male 2).

The court found that Male 1 and Male 2 committed arson by intentionally burning the Honda, which was not wholly owned by them, to destroy evidence related to a murder.

The court concluded that Willan aided the arson by driving Male 1 and Male 2 from the burn site back to Oshawa, having known about the Jerry Can and the purpose of the trip.

Willan was found guilty.

I.C. was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, A.W., relating to a "Horsey Incident" that occurred between 2008 and 2010.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed.

The court, in this Part 2 sentencing decision, determined a fit sentence after re-evaluating facts based on the "Horsey Incident" only.

Aggravating factors included the breach of trust, the complainant's young age (8-10), the incident occurring in the family home, physical restraint, and the significant impact on the complainant and her mother.

Mitigating factors included I.C. being a first offender, having no criminal record, a low risk of re-offence, and being gainfully employed.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent incarceration.

The court, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Friesen* and the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance on conditional sentences for child sexual offences, imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, along with various ancillary orders, including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a s. 161 prohibition order with an exception for biological daughters subject to family court approval.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Zhuxi Xi Shen, who was convicted of sexual assault after a judge-alone trial.

The court found that Mr. Shen sexually assaulted the complainant twice: once while she was incapacitated and again after she awoke, without her consent.

The assaults were premeditated, and the complainant suffered profound physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought a five-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed three years, effectively time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's vulnerability, premeditation, and the severe impact on the victim, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, youth, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also addressed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers, Downes, and Duncan), particularly the harsh conditions experienced in detention.

A sentence of four years and one month was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry compliance, and a no-contact order.

The applicant, Teshome Daste Adane, sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the total delay of 45 months exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court proceedings established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the timeline, attributing significant portions of the delay to both the Crown (for disclosure delays) and the defence (for not diligently pursuing a Judicial Pre-trial and not choosing the earliest trial date due to a planned trip).

After subtracting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (delay in arrest due to the applicant being abroad, and the COVID-19 pandemic), the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as the court found no basis to exercise its residual discretion.

The applicant, Tyrone Jackson, sought a bail review under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, challenging a prior detention order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a new, stronger surety plan, allowing for a de novo bail application.

Despite the serious nature of the charges (firearm possession) and the applicant's criminal record, the court was persuaded that the proposed release plan, including 24/7 supervision by a strong primary surety and GPS monitoring, mitigated the risks on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted the bail application, ordering release on a recognizance with two sureties and strict conditions.

The defendant, Zhu Xi Shen, applied for judicial interim release following his conviction for sexual assault, after his initial bail was vacated due to flight risk concerns.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, including a new release plan with an additional residential surety, a significant increase in the pledged bail amount, and the proposed use of ankle monitoring.

The defendant also intended to bring a Charter application to reopen the trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that despite the enhanced release plan, the defendant remained a significant flight risk due to the serious nature of the offence, the lengthy sentence sought by the Crown, his means to abscond, and the limitations of electronic monitoring in preventing flight.

The defendant, Zhuxi Xi Shen, brought a second application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application was summarily dismissed by Justice Spies.

The court refused to grant leave to hear the application due to the applicant's repeated failure to comply with filing deadlines under the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the Provincial Practice Direction, noting a flagrant disregard for prior rulings and procedural rules.

Furthermore, the court found that even if leave were granted, the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the total delay, after accounting for periods previously addressed by another judge and exceptional circumstances (hung jury, pandemic backlog, complainant's unavailability), fell well within the presumptive Jordan timeline.

The court also found no basis to exercise residual discretion to grant a stay.

Adil Zeno, convicted of accessory after the fact to murder, brought a post-verdict application for a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, alleging abuse of process by the Crown.

The alleged abuse primarily related to a separate murder prosecution and the Crown's position on bail.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged misconduct was not related to the current proceeding and that alternative remedies, such as seeking damages in the other proceeding, were available.

The court emphasized that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy reserved for the 'clearest of cases' and that impugned conduct must be related to the proceeding before the court.

The defendant, Adil Zeno, brought a Charter application to exclude video evidence from a cell phone, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while there was a breach of the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel due to an unreasonable delay, and accepted for the purpose of the application that there was a section 8 breach related to the search warrant for the cell phone, these breaches were not serious enough to warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and relevant to the Crown's case.

The application to exclude evidence was denied.

The accused, Andrew Douglas, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on a first-degree murder charge at the close of the Crown's case.

The application was opposed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the first-degree murder charge, particularly regarding planning and deliberation.

The case was allowed to proceed to the jury on the first-degree murder charge.

The defendant, Adil Zeno, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, lack of coercion, and the compounding of victim suffering, and mitigating factors including his youth and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought 18-24 months.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years, which was covered by the 44 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a sentence of one day in jail in addition to time served.

A 10-year prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed, but probation was denied.

This ruling addresses a Corbett application in a first-degree murder trial.

The accused sought to limit the admissibility of his criminal record for cross-examination on credibility.

The Crown argued for the full record, contending the defence would attack the deceased's character.

The court balanced the probative value of the convictions against the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning, particularly for violent and similar offences.

The judge ruled that only convictions for obstruction of a Peace Officer and theft (read down from robbery) would be admissible, finding that the defence's argument regarding the deceased's possession of a firearm was a direct response to the indictment, not an attack on character, thus not creating an imbalance requiring the full record.

The defendant, Shaun Blackman, was charged with intimidation of a justice system participant (an undercover police officer, TK) and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to TK, contrary to ss. 423.1(1)(b) and 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The charges stemmed from Instagram posts made by Blackman revealing TK's identity and containing threats, prior to TK testifying at Blackman's preliminary inquiry.

The court found that Blackman was the account holder and that the posts were made by him.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Blackman intended to provoke fear in TK to impede his duties and that the posts constituted threats of death or bodily harm.

Blackman was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's extreme intoxication and vulnerability, the unprotected intercourse, and the significant impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, difficult upbringing, expressed remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought a time-served sentence of two years less one day, arguing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit due to harsh lockdown conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied a sentencing range of three to five years for serious sexual assault, found a three-year sentence appropriate, and granted pre-sentence custody credit, including an enhanced "Duncan credit" for lockdowns and a small additional credit for limited programming due to COVID-19.

The final sentence was three years in custody, reduced by two years and five months of pre-sentence credit, leaving seven months to serve, followed by two years of probation and several ancillary orders.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, convicted of sexual assault, applied for interim release pending his sentencing hearing under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The application was brought after a prior detention order and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood that the defendant would reoffend, particularly by breaching curfew and committing further serious offences against vulnerable women, given his history of alcohol-related breaches and the nature of his convictions.

The court acknowledged the importance of out-of-custody assessments for sentencing but prioritized public safety.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a W.D. analysis, providing insufficient reasons regarding self-defence, and failing to impose a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, faithfully applied the substance of W.D. principles, and reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest given the violent nature of the assault and the need for general deterrence.

The applicant, Shaheed Bacchus Ali, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for 22 charges, including firearms and drug trafficking.

The application was based on two material changes: a stronger release plan with 24/7 surety supervision and GPS monitoring, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the improved supervision plan adequately addressed secondary ground concerns regarding reoffending.

On the tertiary ground, while the Crown's case was strong and the charges serious, the court balanced these factors against the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the viability of the proposed release plan.

The court granted judicial interim release with strict conditions, including house arrest, GPS monitoring, and self-isolation.