P. Andras Schreck

The offender, a 23-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after attempting to remove his girlfriend from her home using a pellet gun and utility knife.

The incident occurred while the offender was suffering from severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation, and he was motivated by a misguided desire to get the victim into rehabilitation.

The court balanced the competing sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence against the offender's rehabilitation, mental illness, and strict bail conditions.

Finding the circumstances highly unusual, the court granted a conditional discharge with two years of probation.

This criminal trial concerned two defendants, Osman Aim and Ramone Thomas, charged with firearm offences after two handguns were found in a vehicle during a traffic stop.

The driver fled and was not apprehended.

The central issue was whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant had knowledge and control (constructive possession) of the firearms.

The court found that while the Crown's inferences were reasonable, they were not the only reasonable inferences, particularly considering alternative explanations for the movement of one firearm and the flight of one defendant, including the context of anti-Black racism in policing.

Both defendants were found not guilty on all counts.

This criminal trial concerned Justin Europe, who was charged with multiple offences related to human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits from sexual services, advertising sexual services, assault, aggravated assault, and threatening.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant, L.G.'s, evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefits from human trafficking and sexual services, advertising sexual services, aggravated assault, and threatening death.

He was found not guilty of simple assault and threatening to kill a dog due to insufficient evidence.

The court emphasized the dynamics of the relationship, L.G.'s fear, and the accused's conduct in reinforcing that fear to profit from her work.

The accused, Justin Europe, charged with human trafficking and related offences, sought to cross-examine the complainant about her prior sexual activity.

The Crown argued that s. 276 of the Criminal Code applied, requiring a formal application.

The court, applying the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis, determined that s. 276 does not apply to human trafficking offences, following the precedent set in R. v. Williams, 2020 ONSC 206.

The court also rejected the common law requirement for a voir dire for such evidence.

While allowing questions about the complainant's involvement in the sex trade immediately prior to the alleged offences due to relevance to the "procuring" element, the court disallowed questions about her activities after the relationship ended, finding them to have marginal relevance.

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and having a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, arguing police lacked reasonable grounds for arrest (sections 8 and 9 Charter) and that delayed advice of the right to counsel (sections 10(a) and 10(b) Charter) warranted exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The court found police had reasonable grounds for arrest.

While acknowledging Charter breaches due to interpreter delay, the court re-evaluated the section 24(2) analysis, finding the trial judge erred in underestimating the breach's impact but ultimately concluding that admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by three defendants charged in relation to a first degree murder.

The defendants argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of their Charter rights.

The court found all three statements were voluntary.

Mr. Kerr's statement was admitted despite a minor s. 10(b) breach.

Mr. Samuel's statement was admitted as no Charter breaches were established.

Ms. Owen's statement was excluded under s. 24(2) because she was arbitrarily detained and denied her right to counsel during the execution of a search warrant, and the court rejected the Crown's argument that the 'actus reus exception' precluded exclusion.

The accused, Shahabeldin Mohamed, was found guilty of dangerous operation of a conveyance, accessory after the fact to robbery, and failure to stop when pursued by police.

Prior to sentencing, the Crown and defence reached a resolution: the Crown would stay the accessory and failure to stop charges, and a joint submission for a conditional sentence would be made for the dangerous operation count.

The court addressed four issues: the Crown's power to stay charges post-conviction but pre-sentence, whether to accede to the joint submission, and the appropriateness of a DNA order and a firearms prohibition.

The court affirmed the Crown's power to stay charges, accepted the joint submission for a 16-month conditional sentence, but declined to impose a DNA order or a firearms prohibition, finding that the dangerous driving offence in this case did not involve violence against a person.

The applicant, Andrew Rocha, sought a stay of proceedings for charges of possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, alleging police stole money and drugs during a search warrant execution, violating his s. 7 Charter rights.

The court found approximately $6000 of seized cash was missing and inferred it was taken by police officers involved in the investigation.

This misconduct was deemed an abuse of state power and a breach of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given the egregious nature of the police misconduct and the lack of an adequate alternative remedy, the court granted a stay of proceedings to dissociate the justice system from the impugned conduct, despite the strong societal interest in a trial on the merits.

Simon Ho-On was charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, administering a noxious thing, and unlawful confinement involving a 16-year-old complainant, B.W. The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the two witnesses, B.W. and Mr. Ho-On, who provided conflicting accounts.

The court found B.W. to be a credible witness, but her memory was impaired regarding events at the condominium due to Xanax consumption.

Mr. Ho-On's testimony was rejected due to inconsistencies.

Consequently, Mr. Ho-On was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, but acquitted of sexual assault and administering a noxious thing related to the condominium incident.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 39 months and 23 days, well above the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that a significant portion of the delay should be attributed to the defence due to a late re-election and failure to promptly request an Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the defence's actions were legitimate responses to the Crown's ongoing failure to make timely disclosure, particularly regarding a phone extraction and the related ITO.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the proceedings.

Daniel Dubajic, a first offender, was convicted on 73 counts related to possessing colossal amounts of drugs (106 kg cocaine, 5 kg fentanyl, 30 kg crystal methamphetamine, 4 kg MDMA) for trafficking and numerous firearms (57 handguns, 8 long guns, 15,000 rounds of ammunition) for transfer.

The Crown sought a 25-year sentence, while the defence proposed 15 years.

The court imposed an 18-year sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, but also considering the law of diminishing returns and the offender's rehabilitative potential as a first offender, finding his role was not at the top of the trafficking hierarchy.

After applying 3 years and 1 month of credit for pre-sentence custody (including Summers and Duncan credits), the remaining sentence to be served is 13 years and 10 months.

The accused was charged with numerous drug and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found large quantities of cocaine, fentanyl, crystal methamphetamine, MDMA, 57 handguns, long guns, and ammunition.

The accused admitted to possessing a small amount of cocaine but denied knowledge of the rest, claiming he rented the room where the contraband was found to an acquaintance.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unbelievable and found that the circumstantial evidence, including the immense value of the drugs, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and constructive possession of all the items.

The accused was found guilty on all 73 counts.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault, threatening, mischief, and forcible entry on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

She alleged her trial lawyer was unprepared, failed to provide proper advice, brought a meritless stay application, and sexually harassed her.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the appellant did not demonstrate the verdict would have been different, trial counsel's pervasive incompetence and sexual harassment of the appellant compromised the fairness of the trial, amounting to a constructive denial of the assistance of counsel.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including robbery and reckless discharge of a firearm, after firing a handgun into a ceiling to distract police while co-conspirators robbed a jewelry store.

The accused absconded prior to sentencing.

The court found the accused had absconded within the meaning of s. 475 of the Criminal Code but proceeded with sentencing in absentia as a presentence report provided sufficient information.

The court imposed a total sentence of 77.5 months imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for presentence custody, resulting in 70 months left to serve.

The accused, facing a retrial for sexual assault and extortion, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce three categories of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual activity.

The court held that evidence of non-consensual activity during the making of a video was inadmissible due to issue estoppel from a prior acquittal and as discreditable conduct.

Evidence of prior consensual sexual encounters was also excluded as it lacked sufficient probative value for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

However, the court permitted cross-examination on the complainant's allegation that she was coerced into having sex with the accused's friends, finding it relevant to her credibility.

The offender, a 32-year-old Black man with no prior criminal record, was found guilty of possessing a loaded handgun in his vehicle.

The firearm was discovered during a vehicle search for cannabis.

The court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's background of poverty, systemic racism, and trauma, which mitigated his moral blameworthiness.

Finding that the offender possessed the gun for personal protection rather than criminal enterprise, and emphasizing his rehabilitative potential, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by 18 months of probation.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for his role in a fatal shooting.

The court found that the offender was aware of the presence of a firearm and was a party to the offence under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, against mitigating factors, such as harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and rehabilitative potential, the court determined an appropriate sentence of 113.5 months.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment.

The offender was convicted of attempted murder, unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, wearing a disguise with intent, and occupying a vehicle with a firearm after shooting the victim in an apartment parking lot.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the planned shooting and the offender's prior criminal record involving firearms against his youth, difficult background, and rehabilitative potential.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 125.25 months, which was reduced to 102 months after applying Summers and Duncan credits for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied to have the court endorse a certificate of default pursuant to s. 770(1) of the Criminal Code, alleging the respondent breached his bail conditions by failing to reside at his specified address, breaching a curfew, and committing offences in the United States.

The respondent had failed to attend the last day of his trial because he was in custody in New York.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent failed to reside at his address, breached his curfew without an applicable exception, or committed the alleged offences in the US.