Rachel Verboom

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm arising from a hate-motivated attack on a subway passenger based on sexual orientation.

The attack was brutal, involving multiple punches and stomping on the victim's face, resulting in serious injuries including concussion and facial fractures.

The offender has an extensive criminal history including prior convictions for aggravated assault, dangerous driving, and sexual assault.

The offender has been in custody for over 10 years (2,615 days credited at 1.5:1).

The court sentenced the offender to three years and six months imprisonment, with one day additional to time served, reflecting a reduction from the otherwise appropriate four-year sentence due to harsh presentence custody conditions including prolonged lockdowns and triple bunking.

This decision concerns the trial of Jevor Brown, who was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, using an imitation firearm to commit sexual assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault as a party with another, arising from an incident at 111 Bathurst Street, Toronto, on July 10, 2019.

Brown conceded to having non-consensual intercourse with the complainant, K.M., while his co-accused, Shayne Codrington, was also sexually assaulting her.

The main issues were whether the defence of duress applied, and whether Brown was a party to the offences involving the firearm and confinement.

The court found Brown's evidence of duress not credible or reliable, and concluded the Crown had disproved all elements of the duress defence.

Brown was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The court sentenced Pal Pintyi for manslaughter in the death of his brother-in-law, Robert Racz.

The trial judge considered the turbulent relationship between the men, the history of threats and violence, and the provocation by the deceased.

The Crown sought eight years’ imprisonment; the defence sought five.

The court imposed a sentence of five years plus one day (time served), taking into account harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, provocation, and mitigating factors such as Pintyi’s background, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court sentenced Jevor Brown for convictions including sexual assault with a weapon, sexual assault with another person, and forcible confinement.

The decision reviews the facts, the offender’s background, the parties’ sentencing positions, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the offender’s mental health, and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a sentence of six years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and SOIRA order.

The court found Pal Pintyi guilty of manslaughter, not murder, in the death of his brother-in-law, Robert Racz.

The decision turned on whether the Crown had proven the intent required for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted that Pintyi acted out of fear and anger after years of abuse and threats from Racz, culminating in a confrontation where Pintyi struck Racz with a steel pipe and kicked him.

The evidence did not establish the necessary intent for murder, and the court found a reasonable inference that Pintyi acted impulsively in response to provocation.

The partial defence of provocation was not considered necessary, as the intent for murder was not proven.

The applicant, who pleaded guilty in Washington State in 2014 to communication with a minor, sought an exemption from Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) obligations in Canada.

The Attorney General of Ontario had deemed his foreign offence equivalent to child luring.

The court, without deciding on the equivalence of the foreign offence, focused on whether the applicant met the criteria for exemption under the amended s. 490.02905(2)(c) or (d) of the Criminal Code.

Based on expert psychological assessment indicating a very low likelihood of re-offending, no prior criminal record, and significant personal hardship caused by SOIRA obligations (travel and employment restrictions), the court found that there was no connection between the obligation and SOIRA's purpose, and the impact on the applicant was grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The application for an exemption order was allowed.

The accused, Winston Durant, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for sexual assault and related charges, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating a total delay of 42.5 months.

After deducting 11 months of defence-caused delay (including refusal to schedule pre-trial and earlier trial dates), the net delay was 31.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

However, the court found two exceptional circumstances: a one-month delay due to the complainant's hospitalization and at least six months due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

Subtracting these seven months reduced the remaining delay to 24.5 months, below the ceiling.

The court further found that the accused failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings, having actively sought to delay the trial.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed.

The accused, Michael Ara, was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg in 100 mL of blood.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of his section 10(b) right to counsel and section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure regarding breath samples.

The court found that the police breached Mr. Ara's s. 8 Charter rights because the breath demands were not made as soon as practicable, and his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by delaying access to counsel despite his waiver of privacy.

However, applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court determined that admitting the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the breaches, their impact on the accused, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court also rejected the argument that the certificate of analysis was fatally flawed due to a missing year, finding it a minor omission that did not mislead or prejudice the accused.

Ultimately, the accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused, Ruxsan Arulrajah, was charged with robbery.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory utterance made by the accused to police.

The court found the utterance inadmissible on two grounds: it was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was obtained in violation of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel) due to both informational and implementational breaches.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As the Crown chose to call no further evidence after the ruling, the charge was dismissed, resulting in an acquittal for the accused.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after fleeing police and hiding two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl in a residential backyard.

The court considered the accused's serious criminal record, including prior convictions for armed robbery and murder, and the significant danger posed to the public.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years and 2 months after crediting pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Following a judge-alone trial, the defendant was found guilty of multiple serious offences including use of an imitation firearm, robbery, forcible confinement, and several counts of sexual assault with a weapon and with a co-accused.

The offences involved a planned, violent gang assault on a vulnerable victim.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested time served (equivalent to 5.5 years).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, the victim's vulnerability, and the defendant's lack of remorse, which indicated poor rehabilitation prospects.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's mental health and learning difficulties, family support, and credit for restrictive pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, deducting 5 years and 5 months for pre-sentence credit, leaving 4 years and 7 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a non-communication order were also made.

Duplicate counts were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Shane Codrington, was charged with multiple offences including robbery, sexual assault with an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault with a weapon, stemming from an incident on July 10, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence including the complainant's testimony, video surveillance, and forensic DNA evidence linking a co-accused.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming an alibi and that evidence was planted.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by video and medical evidence.

The court rejected the accused's alibi and claims of planted evidence, finding his testimony untruthful.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one related to the co-accused's participation in the elevator assault.

Jevor Brown, co-accused in a sexual assault case, brought a motion under s.11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 46 months and 29 days, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for indictment cases.

Brown argued that only a four-month period was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the Crown should have severed his case from his co-accused, Shane Codrington, whose actions caused significant delay.

The Crown contended that a longer period of delay was due to the pandemic's "ripple effect" on court capacity, resulting in a net delay below the Jordan ceiling, and that severance was not in the interests of justice given the nature of the charges and potential for a cut-throat defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the majority of the delay was attributable to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and its systemic impact, and that the Crown's decision not to sever the trials was justified by the interests of justice.

The accused was charged with 10 counts relating to the possession of two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl.

The charges arose after a high-speed police chase ended in a collision, from which a man fled on foot, hiding the firearms and drugs in a nearby backyard before being arrested.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the fleeing man.

The court found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing, and DNA, overwhelmingly established that the accused was the man who fled the vehicle and possessed the contraband.

D.C., convicted of rape in California, sought an order exempting him from or terminating his obligations under Canada's Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA).

He argued that the California offence was not "equivalent to" Canadian sexual assault due to differences in mens rea, and that the Minister's equivalency determination should be based solely on statutory elements, not the underlying conduct.

He also contended that the impact of SOIRA registration on his life was grossly disproportionate and sought to reduce his reporting period from 20 to 10 years.

The court dismissed all applications, ruling that the determination of equivalency must consider the factual circumstances of the foreign conviction, which in D.C.'s case met the standard for sexual assault in Canada.

The court found that the impact of SOIRA was not grossly disproportionate, noting D.C.'s voluntary resignation from employment, and confirmed that the 20-year reporting period was appropriate as sexual assault is deemed an indictable offence under Canadian law.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested entirely on breath test results obtained following the accused's arrest.

The defence raised three Charter applications: (1) a section 8 breach based on the arresting officer's chemically impossible articulation of the legal BAC limit; (2) a section 8 breach for failure to "transfer grounds" to the breath technician; and (3) a section 10(b) breach regarding the implementation of the right to counsel of choice.

The court found a section 10(b) breach but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach fell on the lower end of the seriousness spectrum despite its significant impact on the accused's protected interests.

The accused was convicted.