Robert F. Goldstein

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for sexual assault and assault committed against young women on public transit.

The offender had a lengthy record spanning decades for similar offences.

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender, finding that his chronic toucherism and intractability established a likelihood of future harm.

The court concluded an indeterminate sentence was not required and imposed a determinate sentence approximating time served plus 60 days, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual assault, was subject to a Crown application for a dangerous offender assessment.

The defence sought to retain a forensic psychiatrist to conduct a separate assessment, but the expert refused to work at the standard Legal Aid rate of $200 per hour, requiring $400 per hour.

The defence brought a Fisher/Peterman application for state funding at the enhanced rate.

The court granted the application, finding that requiring the accused to exhaust Legal Aid appeals or find another expert would cause undue delay and compromise his right to a fair trial, particularly given his lengthy pre-sentence custody and the disparity between Legal Aid rates and Crown expert rates.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The offender, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after being arrested at a basketball court.

The court rejected the Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report for failing to connect systemic racism to the offender's specific circumstances, as required by Morris.

However, considering the offender's guilty plea, lack of associated criminality, successful bail period, and the viable but unlitigated Charter argument regarding racial profiling, the court found a conditional sentence appropriate.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The offender, a 34-year-old first offender, was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after an uncontested trial following an unsuccessful Charter application.

He was found with 356.4 grams of fentanyl and 19.9 grams of cocaine at a RIDE checkpoint.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including his pro-social background, lack of prior record, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after stabbing a man during an altercation on a TTC streetcar.

The offender, who was subject to a peace bond prohibiting weapons, acted in self-defence but used excessive force.

The court considered the offender's 11 months of pre-sentence custody, his lack of a prior criminal record, and his career plans.

Finding that a discharge would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months of probation.

Sentencing for large-scale commercial cocaine trafficking involving 71 kilograms trafficked in one day and more than 100 kilograms overall conduct considered by the court.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's place in the drug hierarchy were dominant considerations, but also weighed youth, family support, limited rehabilitative potential, and the restraint principle applicable to a young first offender.

Social context evidence relating to anti-Black racism was considered but found not sufficiently connected to the offending conduct to materially reduce moral blameworthiness on the record.

A global sentence of 10.5 years concurrent was imposed, with 18 months' credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail, leaving 9 years to serve.

Sentencing for a guilty plea to robbery arising from a planned, violent takeover robbery of a cash business in which masked co-participants used a handgun, forcibly confined employees, and stole over $1 million, while the offender acted as the decoy driver.

The court treated the guilty plea, youth, family support, and some rehabilitative prospects as mitigating, but emphasized planning, anticipated violence, the scale of the theft, and the terror inflicted on the victims.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 21-month sentence consecutive to an existing sentence for a later home invasion robbery.

The court refused to grant Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions because the offender committed a serious new robbery while on house arrest bail.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

Following a rear-end collision, the appellant failed a roadside screening test, was arrested, and repeatedly asked to be released at the scene rather than accompany the officer to the station, despite warnings that this would constitute a refusal.

On appeal, the appellant argued the refusal was not unequivocal, his statements were involuntary, and the information was improperly particularized.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, the actus reus exception to the voluntariness rule applied to the refusal statements, and the information was sufficiently particularized.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to robbery.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, a history of severe mental illness including schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, and a pattern of committing robberies shortly after release from custody.

The court found that the offender met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender based on both a pattern of repetitive behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour.

Concluding that the offender was intractable and that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

The offender, an experienced mining promoter, was convicted of fraud under the Securities Act for misrepresenting that a cryptocurrency token was backed by an interest in a copper mine.

The court declined to order restitution, finding that the prosecution failed to establish that the fraudulent misrepresentation caused or significantly contributed to the investors' losses, which were primarily due to the project's inability to raise sufficient funds.

The court sentenced the offender to six months in custody and 18 months of probation, emphasizing general deterrence while recognizing that the fraud was not a pure scam for personal enrichment.

The accused, former legal counsel to the Thunder Bay Police Service, was charged with obstruction of justice and breach of trust by a public official.

The Crown alleged she made intentional false or misleading statements during an Ontario Civilian Police Commission investigation regarding her knowledge of a criminal investigation into the police services board chair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while some of the accused's statements were inaccurate, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally made false statements or material omissions.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple serious firearms and drug trafficking offences stemming from two separate incidents, the second of which occurred while he was on bail for the first.

The court found the offender was a commercial drug trafficker using firearms as tools of the trade, necessitating a sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Applying the totality principle and accounting for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years imprisonment, less credit for time served.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after an uncontested trial.

He was caught acting as a courier with over 34 kilograms of high-purity cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years, while the defence sought 6-7 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factor of the massive quantity of cocaine against mitigating factors including the offender's pro-social background, lack of criminal record, and status as a low-level courier.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in custody, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation for large-scale hard drug trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault but subsequently brought an application to strike the plea prior to sentencing.

He argued the plea was involuntary due to the stress of being arrested on outstanding warrants and uninformed because he did not fully appreciate the immigration consequences, specifically the risk of deportation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had the cognitive capacity to make a volitional choice and was explicitly warned by counsel and the court about potential immigration consequences but chose to proceed anyway.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the plea, concluding there was no miscarriage of justice.

The offender was found in breach of his conditional sentence order (CSO) after being arrested at a hotel while subject to house arrest.

The court first determined that the CSO began running when the offender was released from custody on statutory release, even though his warrant of committal had not technically expired.

Finding the breach to be flagrant and noting the offender's significant criminal record and history of breaching court orders, the court terminated the conditional sentence and directed that the remainder be served in custody.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after brutally beating the victim to death in an apartment building laundry room.

The offender suffered from severe, lifelong mental illnesses, including schizoaffective disorder, and had a history of non-compliance with medication leading to violent behaviour.

The Crown sought a 16-20 year sentence followed by a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order, while the defence sought a time-served sentence of approximately 10 years.

Emphasizing the paramount need to protect the public from an offender who poses a high risk of violent recidivism when unsupervised and unmedicated, the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.

Consequently, the Crown's application for a Long-Term Supervision Order was dismissed.

Sentencing of a first offender who pleaded guilty to uttering threats, assault with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, unlawful confinement (kidnapping), and disobeying a court order in the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused conducted a mock execution by pointing a handgun at the victim's head and pulling the trigger while their child was in the apartment, and two days after release on bail kidnapped the victim in violation of a no-contact order.

The court rejected the defence position of 6 years (time served) as insufficient to denounce the crimes, and imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, resulting in approximately 14 months further custody plus three years probation, along with firearms prohibition orders including a lifetime ban on the kidnapping count.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in her parole ineligibility period.

The court had previously determined there was a reasonable prospect the application would proceed and empanelled a jury.

After hearing evidence over twelve days, the jury reduced the applicant's parole eligibility date from May 16, 2032 to May 16, 2029, granting a three-year reduction in parole ineligibility.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging his prosecution for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the prosecution should be stayed as it offended the rule against double jeopardy following his conviction on institutional disciplinary charges; that the search of his cell violated s. 8 of the Charter; that questioning by correctional officers violated s. 10(b) of the Charter; and that evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed all arguments, finding that s. 11(h) does not apply to inmate disciplinary proceedings; that the search was properly authorized; that no s. 10(b) violation occurred; and that evidence exclusion was not warranted.