Peter Joseph Chmiel

The case concerns the sentencing of Timothy Hill, a 37-year-old Mohawk man, for possessing a loaded handgun (s. 95 Criminal Code) and careless storage (s. 86 Criminal Code).

The Crown sought 2 years imprisonment, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence given Mr. Hill's Indigenous heritage and significant pre-sentence house arrest.

The court emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing, considering the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, particularly in light of Gladue principles and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

The judge granted a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, followed by 3 years probation, recognizing the mitigating factors of Mr. Hill's Indigenous background and the impact of his house arrest.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing Janis and Adem Corhamzic, who were found guilty of aggravated assault and assault.

The incident involved a brutal, hate-motivated attack on two victims, Mohammad Abu Marzouk and Fuat Yucel, in front of their families.

Mr. Abu Marzouk suffered severe traumatic brain injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the anti-Arab hate motivation, the severe and lasting impact on the victims and their families, and the sustained violence, particularly the kicking of an unconscious victim.

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, expressions of remorse, stable employment, and family support.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation for hate-motivated crimes while also applying the principle of restraint for first-time offenders.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and criminal harassment arising from the dissolution of an intimate relationship.

The Crown proceeded on six counts, later withdrawing two counts of possession of cocaine.

At trial, the Crown further withdrew a charge of forcible confinement and a charge of criminal harassment dated March 18, 2019.

The court found the accused not guilty of assault with a weapon (thrown bar stool on March 14, 2019) and criminal harassment (repeated communications on March 29-30, 2019).

The court found insufficient evidence of mens rea for the assault charge and reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge that his communications constituted harassment.

The applicant, P.S., sought a review of a detention order.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review.

The applicant proposed a new release plan with three sureties, strict house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Hastings, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record, time spent in custody, and the general increased risk of COVID-19 in detention facilities.

The court found the proposed plan, including significant surety pledges and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

The parties were involved in a dispute over the estate of the deceased, who allegedly died intestate.

The applicant sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee Without a Will and an advance from the estate, while the respondents sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation and directions regarding estate properties.

The court consolidated the two applications, appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation to administer the estate pending the resolution of the dispute, deferred the request for an advance, and authorized the payment of outstanding property taxes on estate properties.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal fees and a business valuator, while the respondent cross-motioned for access and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court imputed an annual income of $150,000 to the respondent for support purposes, finding a pattern of non-disclosure, lavish lifestyle, and complex financial arrangements.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for the applicant.

The respondent's motions for access and OCL involvement were dismissed due to serious concerns about his mental health, violent history, and lack of insight.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order in question was interlocutory.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.