Richard Bedad Mwangi

The accused, Hassan Hassan, applied for a stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel (a Rowbotham order) for his trial on charges of extortion and aggravated assault.

Legal Aid Ontario had denied funding.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish both that he lacked the financial means to employ counsel and that he required counsel to ensure a fair trial.

The court found the applicant's testimony regarding his financial situation not credible due to incomplete disclosure and inconsistent statements about his bank accounts.

Shemar Nelson was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime following a police operation.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and argued a lack of continuity for the seized items.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling that the investigative detention, safety search of a satchel, and delay in advising counsel were justified by officer safety concerns and the circumstances.

The court also found the subsequent overholding of the accused was not arbitrary.

However, the court found significant discrepancies in the chain of custody and documentation of the seized evidence, including differing descriptions of items, lack of photographs, and items appearing/disappearing from the property attributed to the accused.

These issues created a reasonable doubt regarding the continuity of the cocaine and cash.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The applicant sought to establish standing to challenge the admissibility of a loaded handgun, ammunition, and drugs seized from a wooden fence during execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence and its contents.

The Crown contended there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared fence accessible from the neighbor's property.

The court found that the applicant established standing by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum, as the fence was part of the curtilage of the residence and the items were not abandoned.

Jeffrey Persad pleaded guilty to firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The parties jointly submitted a nine-year imprisonment sentence, with standard credit for presentence custody.

The dispute centered on enhanced credit for harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), where the offender experienced frequent lockdowns due to staff shortages.

The Crown proposed an additional 0.5:1 credit for lockdown days, while the offender sought 2.5:1.

The court, acknowledging the inhumane and persistent conditions at the TSDC as deliberate state misconduct, awarded an enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for each of the 475 lockdown days, in addition to the standard 1.5:1 credit for 1010 days in custody.

The final sentence was nine years, effectively reduced to 33 months after all credits.

The court delivered reasons for sentence for three co-accused, David Kawal, Tyrel Nicholson, and Devonte Rowe, involved in a botched robbery and kidnapping scheme.

Kawal was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer, robbery with a firearm, and kidnapping with a firearm.

Nicholson pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm, and breach of recognizance.

Rowe was convicted of robbery and kidnapping simpliciter.

The judge emphasized the gravity of handgun violence and offences against police officers, applying principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

Kawal received a life sentence with normal parole eligibility.

Nicholson was sentenced to 10 years (63 months actual after pre-trial credit).

Rowe received a 4-year sentence (time served) based on a joint submission.

The court declined to delay parole for Kawal, citing the parole board's superior position to assess rehabilitation.

The defendant in a sexual assault trial applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity with another man, Steve.

The defence theory was that the complainant fabricated the assault to protect her relationship with Steve, given inconsistencies in her statements about her relationship with Steve and DNA evidence.

The court found the evidence admissible, ruling that the defendant met the preconditions under s. 276(2) and that the evidence had significant probative value regarding the complainant's credibility and the defendant's right to make full answer and defence, without invoking the "twin myths."

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code and obstructing a peace officer contrary to s. 129(a).

A police officer observed the accused exit the driver's seat of a van upon noticing a police car behind him and move to the rear of the vehicle.

The officer conducted an investigative detention, pat-down search, and made an ASD demand.

The accused refused.

The accused challenged the validity of the detention, search, and ASD demand, and alleged breaches of his Charter rights.

The court found the ASD demand was valid based on the odour of alcohol.

While Charter breaches were found regarding the search and right to counsel, the evidence was not excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was convicted.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning four accused charged with multiple offences under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought committal on various counts including possession of firearms, ammunition, and cocaine.

The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence for each accused on contested counts.

The court committed some accused on certain counts while discharging them on others, applying the test that an accused will be committed if there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict.

The Crown charged the defendant with two counts of assault, attempted theft, assault to resist arrest, escape from lawful custody, and two counts of breach of probation arising from incidents on St. Clair Avenue.

The defendant was found guilty of assaulting and attempting to steal from one victim, assaulting a good Samaritan who detained him, and escaping that detention.

The defendant was acquitted of charges relating to the assault on a café owner, as the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt despite an in-dock identification.