P. Andras Schreck

During a trial for first degree murder, the accused applied for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and security video, to place the accused at the scene of the shooting or assisting the shooters.

The court dismissed the directed verdict applications, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict.

The court also ruled on several jury charge issues, declining to instruct the jury on co-principal liability, abetting, or the common unlawful purpose doctrine for second degree murder, and opting to provide an expanded instruction on circumstantial evidence.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their trial.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing for the traditional placement in the dock due to security concerns and to allow the jury a better view for identification purposes.

The court reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on the issue and concluded that there is no presumption regarding an accused's placement.

Applying a case-by-case analysis based on fair trial interests and courtroom security, the court found that sitting at counsel table enhances communication with counsel and avoids the risk of prejudice associated with the dock.

Given the accused's good behaviour during prior court appearances and the lack of specific security risks, the motion was granted.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, applied to sever their trial from a co-accused who had recently been extradited to Canada and was unready for the scheduled trial.

The applicants had been awaiting trial for nearly 30 months and had caused no delay.

The Crown opposed severance, citing the societal interest in a joint trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicants' right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter outweighed the public interest in a joint trial, especially given the Crown's duty to mitigate delay caused by discrete events like extradition.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

Four co-accused were tried for their alleged roles in a coordinated jewellery store robbery and a preceding distraction shooting.

The Crown relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including covert video surveillance, intercepted communications, and DNA.

The court acquitted Hadi of all charges due to reasonable doubt regarding his identification from video evidence.

Mitsakis and Bangura were convicted of conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offences related to the distraction shooting, as DNA and circumstantial evidence proved their involvement.

Mohamed was acquitted of robbery but convicted of being an accessory after the fact, dangerous driving, and fleeing from police after he attempted to escape the arrest scene in a vehicle containing evidence.

Following conviction after a judge-alone trial, the court sentenced the offender for repeated sexual abuse of three young complainants who were daughters of family friends temporarily living with him.

Applying the sentencing guidance in sexual offences against children, the court emphasized the inherent wrongfulness of the conduct, the abuse of trust, the multiple victims, the threats used to secure silence, and the serious long-term harm caused.

Although separate victims ordinarily favoured consecutive sentences, the court held that a fully consecutive structure would offend the totality principle and instead imposed concurrent sentences reflecting the gravamen of the overall misconduct.

The offender received a global sentence of eight years' imprisonment together with firearms, child-protection, DNA, SOIRA, and no-contact ancillary orders.

Mark Holland was convicted of sexual assault from 2008.

The sentencing was significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 16 months imprisonment, while the defence sought "time served" or a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the constitutionality of s. 742.1(f)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which precludes conditional sentences for sexual assault prosecuted by indictment.

The judge found this section to infringe ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared it of no force or effect, following R. v. R.S. and R. v. Sharma.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the extraordinary delay, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence, to be served in the community, along with other standard orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition).

The accused, Andy Metatawabin, was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and threatening death after stabbing another patient in a hospital.

The trial proceeded in two stages: identity and criminal responsibility.

The court found the accused was the assailant and guilty of aggravated assault and weapon possession, but not guilty of attempted murder or threatening due to reasonable doubt regarding intent and the alleged threat.

In the second stage, the court assessed whether the accused was Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) due to schizophrenia.

Weighing expert psychiatric evidence, the court accepted the defence psychiatrist's opinion that the accused was in a psychotic state at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were morally or legally wrong.

Consequently, the accused was found NCRMD on the aggravated assault and weapon possession charges and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and related offences after a woman was shot multiple times by a masked man.

The Crown relied on the victim's recognition evidence, a photo line-up identification by the person who rented the getaway vehicle, and circumstantial evidence including DNA and GPS data.

The trial judge gave no weight to the victim's recognition evidence and little weight to the photo line-up due to reliability concerns.

However, the court found that the remaining circumstantial evidence, including the accused's DNA in the rented vehicle and his presence near where it was parked after the shooting, led to the only reasonable inference that he was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Sentencing for historic sexual offences against children involving multiple victims, including sexual touching committed in positions of familial and trusted adult authority.

The court emphasized the gravity, inherent wrongfulness, and lasting harm of child sexual abuse, relying on recent Supreme Court guidance stressing denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

Although the judge expressed serious reservations about the leniency of a community-based sentence for offences of this nature, the court applied the public interest test governing joint submissions and accepted a joint proposal for a conditional sentence because rejection would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A concurrent conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed, followed by three years' probation, together with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, and weapons prohibition orders.

The offender was convicted of two counts of assault and multiple firearm offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm while subject to three prohibition orders.

The court considered the offender's background as a Black Canadian refugee, an eight-year gap in his criminal record, and the harsh conditions of his presentence custody involving 290 days of lockdowns.

The court imposed a total sentence of 40 months, reduced by 28 months of presentence custody credit, leaving 12 months to serve, followed by 12 months of probation.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, sought to use Facebook messages between himself and the complainant at trial.

The messages had been provided to the police by the complainant and disclosed to the defence by the Crown.

The court held that the s. 278.1 regime does not apply to Crown disclosure, as the Crown's disclosure implies a waiver of privacy by the complainant.

Furthermore, the court found that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages, given they were voluntarily sent to the applicant, a former intimate partner, during an acrimonious period.

The messages were deemed not to be 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a delayed trial date and a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder constituted material changes in circumstances.

The Crown conceded the material changes but opposed release on the secondary ground due to the applicant's history of multiple charges and breaches.

The court found that the proposed surety plan, combined with the fact that the applicant's pre-trial custody would soon exceed the likely sentence for his initial charges, sufficiently mitigated the secondary ground risks.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

The offender was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5000 and one count of knowingly using a forged document involving significant loans from private lenders.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court found the offences constituted a large-scale fraud, attracting a three-to-five-year range.

However, considering the offender's lack of a prior record and the severe collateral immigration consequences (deportation without appeal), the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment.

The defendants were convicted of recklessly discharging a restricted firearm, and one defendant was additionally convicted of drug trafficking and other firearm offences.

The court determined that the five-year mandatory minimum penalty applied to the discharge offence.

After considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the principle of totality, the court sentenced Mr. Jama to five years (reduced to four years, three months, and three weeks after credit) and Mr. Farah to a total of six years and 10.5 months (reduced to two years less a day after credit, plus probation).

The applicant, charged with sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and break and enter, applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant.

The applicant sought to introduce evidence of consensual sexual activity in exchange for drugs two days prior to the alleged offence, to rebut anticipated Crown evidence of unwanted sexual advances on that date.

After the Crown confirmed it would not lead evidence of the unwanted advances, the applicant conceded the application.

The court dismissed the application, noting it could be renewed if the Crown's position changed at trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and threatening bodily harm against his wife.

The case turned entirely on credibility, as there was no independent corroborating evidence.

The complainant alleged the accused injured her clitoris and threatened her, while the accused denied the allegations.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found no reason to reject the accused's evidence and concluded it raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the alleged threatening words were too vague to constitute a threat.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of using forged documents.

The Crown alleged that the accused and a co-conspirator obtained significant loans from two private lenders by falsely representing that the funds would be invested in lucrative Pakistani land deals and by providing forged bank letters to secure further advances.

The court found that the accused knowingly made misrepresentations that induced the lenders to advance funds that were never repaid.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being in custody for over 90 days.

The Crown conceded no substantial likelihood of reoffence (secondary ground) but opposed release on the tertiary ground, arguing it would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case (strong for most charges, weak for attempted murder), gravity of offences, firearm use, and potential lengthy imprisonment.

While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's desire to see his children, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal record, and the weaknesses in the proposed bail plan.

The application for release was dismissed.