Paul T. O'Marra

Sentencing for impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm contrary to s. 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code.

The offender, with a BAC of 180 mg/100 mL, lost control of his vehicle carrying four passengers, striking a concrete light post and overturning.

The front-seat passenger sustained life-threatening injuries including permanent hearing loss and facial nerve damage.

Despite the Crown seeking six to nine months' incarceration, the court determined 12 months was the appropriate custodial range but imposed a 15-month conditional sentence served in the community with strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and alcohol abstinence conditions, followed by 18 months' probation and an 18-month driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The victim sustained serious facial injuries including a 5-inch gash requiring 18 stitches and a 2-inch cut requiring 3 staples, resulting in permanent scarring and nerve damage.

The assault occurred in a restaurant when the accused threw beer and glass bottles at the victim during an altercation.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation with conditions including anger management and substance abuse counselling, a no-contact order, and a weapons prohibition.

The court rejected the defence proposal for a conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration despite the accused's difficult background and mental health issues.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency against his niece and nephew.

He appealed on the basis that his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) was violated.

The trial lasted 660 days from the swearing of the information to the end of closing submissions, exceeding the Jordan threshold of 548 days by 112 days.

The trial judge dismissed the section 11(b) application, finding that after deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the net delay fell just short of the threshold.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made errors in calculating defence delay and pandemic-related delay.

After correcting these errors, the net delay was 571 days, exceeding the Jordan threshold by 23 days.

The court set aside the convictions and stayed the proceedings.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, breach of release order, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown sought 15 months custody plus probation.

The defence argued for time served based on harsh pretrial custody conditions, extensive restrictive bail conditions, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The court sentenced the accused to 15 months custody but credited 104 days of Summers credit, 40 days for harsh institutional conditions (Duncan credit), and 454 days for restrictive bail conditions (Downes credit), totalling approximately 20 months of credit, resulting in a sentence of time already served.

The accused was placed on two years probation with conditions including non-contact with victims, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling for anger management and substance abuse.

The offender was convicted of impaired operation of a conveyance and operation with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 45 to 60 days, an 18-month driving prohibition, and two years probation.

The defence sought an elevated fine, an 18-month driving prohibition, and probation if necessary.

The court imposed a two-month conditional sentence order with home confinement for the first month, an 18-month driving prohibition, and no probation order.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence—involving extremely high blood alcohol levels (310 and 290 mg%), running a red light, and significant property damage—against the offender's first-time status, demonstrated rehabilitation through residential treatment and sustained sobriety, strong family support, and low risk of reoffending.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Akashkumar Narendrakumar Khant, who pleaded guilty to attempted commission of an indecent act contrary to section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, following a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking sexual services from minors.

The Crown sought 90 days custody, while the Defence proposed a conditional discharge with probation and house arrest.

The Court considered extensive psychological assessments, mitigating factors including Khant’s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and severe immigration and professional consequences of a conviction.

The Court distinguished this case from more serious precedents, noting evidentiary weaknesses and the incomplete nature of the offence.

Ultimately, the Court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, including 3 months house arrest, emphasizing proportionality, rehabilitation, and the avoidance of disproportionate collateral consequences.

This decision addresses a Charter application challenging the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence and other related evidence in a case involving impaired driving, operation with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml, and dangerous driving.

The court carefully analyzed the issues of identity of the driver, the reliability of the alcohol screening device (ASD) fail result considering residual mouth alcohol, the lawfulness of detention in the police cruiser during the alcohol screening demand, and the timing of the right to counsel.

The court found no breach of sections 8 or 9 of the Charter but did find a minor breach of section 10(b) due to a brief delay in providing the right to counsel.

The breathalyzer evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty of the "80 plus" offence but not guilty of impaired driving or dangerous driving.

This sentencing decision addresses possession of child pornography under section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Christopher DaSilva, pleaded guilty to possessing a large and disturbing collection of child pornography, including over 35,000 images and nearly 200 videos, amassed over several years.

The court considered extensive forensic and psychological assessments, including phallometric testing indicating pedophilic interests, and a detailed therapy report demonstrating the accused's remorse and commitment to rehabilitation.

The court emphasized the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing child pornography offences, referencing recent appellate decisions updating sentencing ranges post-R. v. Friesen.

The sentence imposed was 18 months incarceration followed by two years probation with strict conditions, including internet restrictions and ancillary orders such as SOIRA registration and DNA sampling.

Stanislaw Dunajski pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a 90-day intermittent jail sentence, while the Defence proposed a 6-9 month conditional sentence.

The court, applying a child-centred approach and considering mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, low risk of re-offending, engagement in therapy, and the nature of the images (sexualized posing of pre-pubescent children, small collection), imposed a six-month conditional sentence.

This was followed by eighteen months of probation and various ancillary orders, including a 10-year SOIRA order, a 5-year section 161 order, and a DNA order.

The court found that a conditional sentence, with strict conditions, could achieve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

E.R., a young person, pleaded guilty to robbery stemming from a home invasion.

The court considered the appropriate sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), including whether a custodial disposition was warranted.

The Crown sought a custody and supervision order or, alternatively, a deferred custody and supervision order.

The defence sought a two-year probation period.

The court determined that while the offence was violent and caused serious psychological harm to the victims, a deferred custody order was not available due to the intended serious bodily harm.

However, considering E.R.'s significant rehabilitative steps, lack of prior record, and low risk of re-offending, the court found that a custodial sentence was not warranted.

A two-year probation period with various conditions was imposed, along with a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after an altercation with an individual he was attempting to re-apprehend under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that while the officer was justified in the initial apprehension, the subsequent use of force, specifically four closed-fist strikes to the individual's face while he was on the ground and largely defenceless, was excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the officer's testimony inconsistent and concluded that the force was used out of frustration and annoyance rather than genuine safety concerns.

The officer was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The offender, Miekel Allen, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm.

The court considered both aggravating factors, such as the nature of the loaded prohibited handgun and its accessibility, and significant mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, pre-trial custody, guilty plea, remorse, pro-social goals, strong family support, difficult childhood, and social context evidence.

The Crown sought a two-year penitentiary sentence, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month reformatory sentence, reduced to 11 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender, a massage therapist, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a client during a therapeutic massage.

The court considered the Crown's request for a 9-12 month jail term and the defence's request for a conditional sentence or 2 months intermittent incarceration.

Aggravating factors included a significant breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and the non-violent nature of the assault.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for healthcare professionals who abuse trust.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days intermittent custody, 12 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

Ezekel Vincent pleaded guilty to manslaughter after initially being charged with second-degree murder.

The charge stemmed from Vincent fatally shooting Kenroy Benjamin, who had just killed Vincent's friend, Sheldon Taylor, at a banquet hall.

The court determined that Vincent brought the handgun to the scene.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors, including the use of a prohibited firearm in a public place, the pursuit and close-range shooting of the victim, and the non-recovery of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included Vincent's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, difficult upbringing, experience with racial discrimination, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed an 11-year sentence, reduced to 10 years due to harsh custody conditions, and further reduced by 30 months for pre-trial credit, resulting in a net sentence of 7.5 years.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

Tremar Thorpe pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm.

The offence involved pointing the gun at a victim and making racist remarks.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the firearm, its loaded and defaced state, its accessibility, and the offender's use of it.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, early guilty plea, remorse, strong community support, prosocial goals, and time spent on strict bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 3-4 year penitentiary sentence, while the Defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount objectives for gun crimes, ultimately imposing a 28-month penitentiary sentence, reduced to 22 months after credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Japdeep Randhawa, brought an application under sections 123 and 119(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) seeking access to the complainant M.S.S.'s youth records.

The court ruled that access was governed by section 123(1) of the YCJA.

The application was granted, as the court found that Randhawa had a valid and substantial interest in the records to make full answer and defence, particularly given the serious charges involving a handgun and M.S.S.'s prior youth convictions related to an imitation firearm and threats.

The court balanced M.S.S.'s privacy interests against Randhawa's constitutional right to full answer and defence, concluding that the latter prevailed.

Specific redactions were ordered for personal information and references to other non-witness young persons.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) right to a speedy trial.

The total delay from the information to the anticipated trial conclusion was 1,120 days.

The court deducted 349 days for defence-caused delay and 140 days for COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances.

The resulting net delay of 631 days (20.74 months) exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court matters.

The Crown failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation efforts for the post-COVID reopening delay.

Consequently, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

The defendant, Meryem Iftikhar, was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The defense raised a Charter application alleging a breach of her section 10(b) right to counsel and a "regurgitation defense" regarding breath samples.

The court dismissed the regurgitation defense, finding no evidence of mouth alcohol.

However, the court found that Constable Alszegi violated Ms. Iftikhar's right to counsel of choice by waiting only six minutes before offering duty counsel and by steering her towards duty counsel based on his personal practice, rather than providing other means to contact her chosen lawyer or another lawyer.

Despite Ms. Iftikhar having spoken to duty counsel, the breach was deemed serious due to institutional issues.

Applying section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath test results, leading to the dismissal of the charge.