P. Zambonini

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a shooting during a drug and firearm transaction inside a vehicle.

The accused admitted to shooting the deceased but claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased attempted to rob and kidnap him.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's response of discharging the firearm eight times was unreasonable in the circumstances.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent for murder beyond a reasonable doubt, as the shooting occurred during a struggle.

The accused was acquitted of murder and convicted of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

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.

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 Crown brought an application for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the respondents on charges of attempted murder following a gunfight outside a convenience store.

The preliminary inquiry judge had found insufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing circumstantial evidence, failing to prefer the inference most favourable to the Crown, and failing to consider the evidence as a whole.

The application was allowed, the discharge order was quashed, and mandamus was granted directing the committal of both respondents to stand trial for attempted murder.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision committing the accused to stand trial for second-degree murder rather than first-degree murder.

The Crown argued that the act of pointing a gun at the victim's head during an attempted robbery constituted unlawful confinement, thereby elevating the offence to first-degree murder.

The reviewing court agreed, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by misunderstanding the elements of unlawful confinement and failing to consider the inference most favourable to the Crown.

The application was granted, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused for first-degree murder.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail under s. 469 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the applicant's serious criminal record and the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the Crown's case was weak, relying entirely on recanted statements from an unsavoury witness obtained during a 'Mr. Big' operation, which contradicted objective evidence.

The court concluded the applicant met his onus on both grounds and granted release on strict house arrest conditions with sureties.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a third-party suspect.

The defence sought to call witnesses and introduce video surveillance to establish that another resident of the victim's building had animus, motive, and opportunity to commit the murder.

The court applied the McMillan test and found that the proposed evidence established a sufficient connection between the third party and the crime.

The application was granted, as the probative value of the evidence outweighed its slight prejudicial effect.

The accused was tried on a 17‑count indictment arising from a prolonged abusive domestic relationship, including allegations of sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threats, criminal harassment, breaches of probation, firearm offences, and obstruction of justice.

The court admitted evidence of prior violence within the relationship as relevant propensity and contextual evidence but declined to admit certain extrinsic similar fact evidence involving another partner.

After assessing credibility under the framework in R. v. W. (D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence and largely accepted the complainant’s account despite her admitted prior recantations and false statements, finding these occurred within a coercive and abusive context.

The court found the accused sexually assaulted the complainant with a weapon, forcibly confined her, threatened her, breached probation, committed mischief, and engaged in criminal harassment and threats intended to obstruct justice.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the object used was a firearm or that the accused committed certain property and firearms offences.

Sentencing decision following convictions for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and multiple counts of mischief endangering life arising from a fatal residential fire in a rooming house.

The offender knowingly failed to comply with Fire Code requirements and misled a fire inspector regarding the intended use of the premises, continuing to rent rooms to unrelated tenants without required safety retrofits.

A tenant died from smoke inhalation after a fire started from an unattended hot plate, and another tenant suffered burns and smoke inhalation.

The court held that the offender’s deliberate disregard of statutory safety requirements and deception of authorities constituted a marked and substantial departure from reasonable conduct.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for landlords who endanger tenants, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of three years and ordered restitution to surviving victims.

Following a fatal residential fire in Toronto, the Crown prosecuted the property owners for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and mischief endangering life.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly operated an unsafe rooming house in violation of Ontario Fire Code requirements despite repeated warnings and inspection notices from the Toronto Fire Service.

The court found that the property was in fact being operated as a rooming house rather than a single-family dwelling and that the landlord deliberately misrepresented the tenancy structure to avoid costly fire‑safety retrofits.

The failure to install required fire‑safety systems and to prevent cooking in bedrooms constituted a marked and substantial departure from the reasonable standard of care and was a significant contributing cause of the fatal fire.

One accused landlord was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and multiple counts of mischief endangering life, while the co‑owner spouse was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or participation.

Following convictions for first degree murder committed when the offenders were young persons, the Crown applied for adult sentences under s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances and criminal histories of the young persons, and broader societal interests including accountability and public protection.

The murder was a planned execution-style killing involving coordinated roles by each offender and subsequent efforts to conceal involvement.

Although two offenders were eligible for Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision orders, the court concluded that youth sentences would not provide sufficient accountability or protection of the public.

Adult sentences were therefore imposed on all three young persons.

The offender was convicted by a jury of break and enter, robbery, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a daytime break-in at a private residence.

The court found the incident constituted a home invasion, as the perpetrators entered the occupied dwelling with stolen keys, wore masks, and unlawfully confined a teenage occupant while ransacking the house.

Weighing the offender's youth, lack of adult record, and lesser role against the severe psychological impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment.

The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.

Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.

The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.

The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.