Nick Chiera

The offender was sentenced for multiple counts of fraud involving 15 victims and proceeds totalling $178,573.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of six months in jail (after accounting for pre-sentence custody and Duncan credit), followed by three years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a secondary DNA order, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $178,573 payable within five years of release, a Financial Activities Prohibition order for 10 years prohibiting employment in financial or vehicle-related roles, forfeiture of property, and a restitution order requiring minimum monthly payments of $1,000 commencing January 1, 2026.

The court emphasized the serious impact on victims and the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence.

This decision addresses an application to stay proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to alleged unreasonable delay in trial.

The accused, Brian Kumar, faced multiple fraud charges arising from the same investigation, with charges laid at different times and later joined.

The court carefully analyzed the total delay from the first information sworn, the defence-caused delay including explicit 11(b) waivers and adjournments, and the Crown's conduct.

The judge found that the majority of the delay was caused or waived by the defence, including delays related to retaining counsel and scheduling judicial pre-trials.

The net delay was calculated to be below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The application for a stay was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

Gurlal Dhillon pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, dangerous driving, and breaching a youth sentence, arising from an armed robbery spree involving multiple vehicle thefts at gunpoint using an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a realistic imitation firearm, the defendant's prior youth sentences, the prevalence of car thefts, and the significant trauma inflicted on victims.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and the defendant's age.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code.

On April 21, 2018, the accused was operating a 2017 Toyota on the Queen Elizabeth Highway when his vehicle collided with the left centre concrete median, resulting in the death of his passenger.

The Crown relied on evidence of excessive speed (174 km/h in a 100 km/h zone), operation on a gravel shoulder with bald tires, and full acceleration while on the shoulder.

The defence argued the accused was cut off and that evidence of racing was unreliable.

The court found the accused guilty, determining his manner of driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

James Anthony Scordino was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Angela Skorulski.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, firearm forfeiture, and primary DNA order.

The victim fine surcharge was waived.

The court acknowledged the brutal nature of the killing and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

During a first-degree murder trial, the jury asked whether there was any evidence that the accused contacted his lawyer about removing the victim from a civil lawsuit.

The Crown requested that the court mention circumstantial evidence, while the defence requested instructions to prevent reversing the burden of proof.

The trial judge applied the principles from R. v. S.(W.D.) and answered the question with a simple 'no', finding it to be accurate, complete, and fair to both sides.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown argued that manslaughter should not be left as an available verdict for the jury.

The court agreed, finding no air of reality to an accidental or unintentional killing, as the forensic evidence showed the victim was shot multiple times in the head, including a final contact shot to the back of the head while incapacitated.

The jury was left with verdicts of not guilty, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts of sexual assault against his former partner's 15-year-old daughter.

On appeal, he argued that the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge improperly curtailed cross-examination regarding the complainant's psychiatric diagnoses, the trial judge's reasons created a reasonable apprehension of bias due to harsh comments about the defence and the appellant's nationality, and the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's suicide attempts.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the verdict was reasonable, the curtailment of cross-examination was a harmless error, the trial judge's comments did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias despite being inappropriate in parts, and there was no material misapprehension of evidence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against Raymond King, his step-father.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of nine months in the community followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement, no contact with the victim, and mandatory counselling for anger management and substance abuse.

The court applied Gladue principles recognizing the defendant's Aboriginal heritage and difficult background while balancing the serious nature of the assault and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual touching of a person under 16 years contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred in January 2013.

The trial proceeded over multiple court appearances spanning 17 months.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The court further found that the accused's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated due to abuse of process resulting from the Crown's breach of undertakings given at the judicial pre-trial and the failures of Legal Aid Ontario.

The court also found a violation of section 11(b) Charter rights due to unreasonable delay caused by the actions of the prosecuting Crown and Legal Aid Ontario.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood on July 20, 2014 in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused sought to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the breath demand.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on dispatch information regarding erratic driving, observations of the vehicle's conduct, and signs of impairment observed during the traffic stop.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on evidence of poor driving, observations of impairment indicators, and breath test results showing a blood alcohol concentration of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and over 80 care or control of a motor vehicle.

The Crown's case relied on testimony from an off-duty police officer and his son who observed the defendant in the driver's seat of a running vehicle with the engine on, and who testified the defendant stated he was going home.

The defendant testified he entered the vehicle using a key fob to search for cigarettes, did not start the engine, and had no intention to drive.

The court found that evidence regarding the vehicle's "super fob" capabilities created reasonable doubt as to whether the engine was actually running, and that the defendant's testimony raised reasonable doubt regarding his intention to drive.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The offender, a former teacher and foster parent, pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a young person under section 153 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved sexual contact with a foster child over a period of years beginning when the victim was 16 years old.

The offender was cooperative with police, confessed immediately upon contact, and demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence followed by a 3-year probation order with strict conditions, balancing the serious breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, cooperation, low risk of reoffending, and psychological profile.