Paolo Giancaterino

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

In a pre-trial admissibility ruling in a homicide prosecution, the court addressed adoptive admissions, detention, voluntariness, delay in implementing the right to counsel, fresh start cautions, and a privacy challenge to cell-block video surveillance.

The court held that the initial 911 admissions and later scene gestures provided some evidence on which a jury could find adoptive admissions between the co-accused.

Applying the Grant detention framework, the court found no detention during the first officer’s preliminary scene questioning after the 911 call, no breach of s. 10, and no basis to exclude the ensuing statements under s. 24(2).

The court also found the subsequent police interviews were voluntary, that delay in securing counsel with a Vietnamese interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances, and that no fresh start caution was required.

The privacy challenge to brief upper-body exposure on cell surveillance footage failed, and in any event would not have justified exclusion of the later interview.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on multiple charges, including assaulting a peace officer.

The hospital and Crown submitted that the accused remained unfit and should continue to be detained at a maximum secure facility, citing recent unprovoked assaults on staff and co-patients driven by command hallucinations.

The Board accepted the evidence, finding the accused lacked a consistent grasp of the legal process and the ability to communicate effectively with counsel.

The accused was ordered to remain detained at the hospital with slightly amended privileges.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The hospital and the Attorney General jointly submitted that the accused no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's progress, insight into his mental illness and substance use, and positive community reintegration.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for eleven charges arising from an armed robbery of a cryptocurrency exchange business.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing circumstantial evidence and failed to consider reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the Villaroman principles and reasonably concluded that the appellant's participation in the robbery was the only plausible inference based on the totality of the evidence, including DNA on clothing used in the robbery.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and facing a joint judge-and-jury trial with a co-accused, sought a Rowbotham order after legal aid funding had been denied.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish the second precondition because proceeds from the sale of her home had not been pursued to fund the defence.

The application for state-funded counsel was therefore denied.

However, given the complexity of the anticipated trial, the accused's language and mobility limitations, the presence of a co-accused, and expected voluntariness and Charter motions, the court appointed amicus with an expanded adversarial mandate in the interests of justice.

The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence's marginal probative value for narrative or explaining the complainant's state of mind did not outweigh its significant prejudicial effect, which included risks of moral prejudice and diverting the trial's focus.

The court emphasized that the proposed evidence was not required for narrative purposes and that the complainant's reaction (remaining silent and motionless) did not require explanation, as such reactions are not unusual in sexual assault cases.

The appellant, C.L., appealed his sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment for violent sexual assault and other related offences.

The appeal raised two grounds: that the trial judge erred in tempering the mitigating factor of his guilty plea with a lack of insight, and that the trial judge erred in her analysis of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the sentencing judge's approach to either the guilty plea's mitigation or the pre-trial custody credit.

This criminal trial involved charges against Zekeim Ogilvie (13 offences) and Akol Akol (15 offences, including enabling escape) stemming from a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone data, and GPS data from a rented vehicle.

The court meticulously analyzed the identification evidence for Ogilvie and the elements of aiding and abetting for Akol.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for either accused on any count, emphasizing the need to avoid speculation and conjecture when drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence.

Both defendants were acquitted.

The Crown applied for testimonial aids for a key witness in a second-degree murder trial.

The witness, who suffers from schizophrenia and other mental health conditions, witnessed the stabbing.

The Crown sought to admit the witness's videotaped police interview under s. 715.2 of the Criminal Code and to allow him to testify via CCTV under s. 486.2.

The court dismissed the s. 715.2 application, finding the witness capable of communicating his evidence cogently.

However, the court granted the s. 486.2 application, allowing the witness to testify via CCTV, as his mental disability and anxiety could make it difficult for him to give a full and candid account in the accused's presence.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit various ante mortem statements made by the deceased victim to friends and family, as well as text messages, under the principled and state of mind exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The statements included allegations of prior discreditable conduct by the accused.

The court admitted several statements and texts that demonstrated the victim's state of mind, fear, and the accused's animus, finding they met the threshold reliability test and were highly probative of motive and planning.

Some statements were excluded as being repetitive, lacking specificity, or more prejudicial than probative.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his former domestic partner.

He admitted to intentionally killing her and sought a conviction for second-degree murder, arguing the killing was impulsive.

The Crown argued the murder was planned and deliberate, and committed during a forcible confinement.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the accused forcibly confined the victim by throwing her into the trunk of his car before strangling and shooting her.

The court also found that the accused's actions, including bringing a sawed-off shotgun, removing his license plate, and driving to a remote location, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application for the forfeiture of a $60,000 cash bail deposit and various sums pledged by sureties after the accused breached his recognizance by continuing to traffic drugs and commit firearms offences.

Prior to the hearing, resolutions were reached regarding the sureties, resulting in $65,000 in forfeitures.

The accused subsequently died in prison.

The estate of the accused sought relief from forfeiture of the cash deposit, requesting that $30,000 be returned to support the accused's children.

The court found that the accused had shown total disregard for his bail conditions and that the estate failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need.

The court ordered the full $60,000 cash deposit forfeited.

The accused pled guilty to perjury for lying under oath during the preliminary inquiry of her boyfriend, who was charged with murder.

The Crown and defence agreed on a sentence range of 18 to 24 months but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or the community.

The court considered the serious nature of perjury in homicide cases, the accused's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while facilitating rehabilitation.

This appeal was brought by George Peters.

Due to the appellant's death, the appeal was dismissed as abated on consent of the parties.

The three offenders were convicted of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter, and sexual assault after breaking into the victim's apartment, confining her, and sexually assaulting her with hair removal cream.

The principal offender, who orchestrated the attack out of revenge and distributed intimate images of the victim online, was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The two co-offenders, who acted as aiders and did not participate in distributing the images, were each sentenced to 4 years in prison.

All offenders received credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault and assault causing bodily harm against the complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, improperly used corroborative evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the defence and Crown evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, noting that different types of testimony require different critical evaluations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breaching an undertaking not to communicate with his former partner.

The breach occurred when the appellant engaged in FaceTime calls with the complainant while exercising access to their children.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant had the requisite subjective mens rea, as he intentionally called the complainant knowing he was bound by a no-contact condition.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to apply the defence of de minimis non curat lex, noting the public interest in enforcing release conditions in domestic violence cases.

The appeal against the suspended sentence and probation was also dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit two statements made by the accused, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The first statement, made spontaneously to a first-responding officer despite cautions, was found to be voluntary.

The second statement, made to a detective during a formal interview, was excluded.

The court found that the detective's comments—suggesting the accused might not get to tell his story in court and that his integrity was highest during the interview—effectively weaponized the right to silence and constituted an inducement, rendering the statement involuntary.

Sentencing decision following convictions after trial for human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, advertising sexual services, sexual assault, assault, and breach of recognizance arising from exploitation of an intimate partner in the sex trade.

The court applied the aggravating-factor framework and tier analysis from trafficking jurisprudence, emphasizing coercive control, appropriation of earnings, sexual violence used as punishment, and the offender’s commercial exploitation of the complainant.

The court accepted significant mitigating factors, including the absence of a prior criminal record, community support, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects.

Applying the totality principle, Summers credit, and limited Downes credit, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years less 90 days, together with DNA, SOIRA, firearms, and no-contact orders.