Robert F. Goldstein

During his criminal trial for a firearms offence, the accused refused to answer a question during cross-examination about the identity of a person who gave him a satchel, citing fears for his safety.

The Crown brought a motion to hold him in contempt of court.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to seriously interfere with the administration of justice.

The court also noted that the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to consult counsel before being required to answer.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a young woman after breaking into her university residence.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record of over 70 convictions, primarily for property offences including numerous break and enters.

The court found the offence to be a home invasion sexual assault, an aggravating factor, while noting the offender's recent efforts at rehabilitation as mitigating.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence range was 9 to 10 years, but credited the offender with 3 years already served for the related break and enter conviction, resulting in a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

The plaintiff sought default judgment for wrongful dismissal after being laid off from his position as a warehouse manager.

The defendant company was noted in default and did not defend the action.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and applied the relevant factors to determine the appropriate notice period.

The court awarded damages based on a 13-month notice period, plus a bonus entitlement, less mitigation.

The plaintiff was previously granted default judgment for wrongful dismissal, with damages set at 13 months' notice ($66,249.95) less mitigation.

In this supplemental endorsement, the court assessed the plaintiff's mitigation earnings from self-employment and another job.

Applying the principles from Brake v. PJ-M2R Restaurant Inc., the court deducted $25,263.93 in mitigation earnings, resulting in a final damages award of $40,986.02.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for domestic assault, arguing the trial judge made fundamental errors in assessing credibility.

Specifically, the appellant alleged the trial judge improperly used prior discreditable conduct evidence, used the complainant's lack of exaggeration to buttress her credibility, and relied on ungrounded common sense assumptions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were grounded in the evidence and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that appellate courts should not dissect trial reasons in a search for technical errors.

The offender pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, offences carrying a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a five-year global sentence but disagreed on the allocation of pre-sentence custody.

The court held that enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit), including frequent lockdowns and the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black inmates, can be applied even when a mandatory minimum sentence is imposed.

The court credited the offender with standard 1.5:1 Summers credit plus an additional six months for harsh conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations against a teacher by two former students, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess competing evidence.

The court accepted the Crown’s evidence on one complainant’s counts, relying on the logic of her account, contemporaneous email evidence, and extrinsic evidence concerning the layout of the accused’s condominium, and rejected the accused’s denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to that complainant.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on the counts involving the second complainant because of reliability concerns and implausibilities in her account, and entered acquittals on those counts.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing the 18-year-old complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The complainant, who is on the autism spectrum and experiences panic attacks, expressed fear of confronting the accused in person.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the complainant testified without issue at the preliminary inquiry and lacked medical documentation for her diagnoses.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold for testimonial aids is whether it would facilitate a full and candid account, and concluded that CCTV testimony would enhance the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The application was filed late, violating the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the provincial Practice Direction.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding that the late filing would cause systemic delays and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the delay was primarily attributable to the defence's re-election and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The offender, a professional truck driver, pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing death after his tractor-trailer struck and killed a pedestrian on the highway.

Although not at fault for the collision, the offender failed to stop, continued his route, and later attempted to conceal his dashcam memory card from police.

The court weighed the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and pro-social background against the aggravating factors of his professional driver status and attempts to avoid detection.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months in custody, a $1,000 fine, and a 17-month driving prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, break and enter, and firearms offences following a home invasion.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the offence and the offender's prior record for armed robbery, balanced against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by inadequate medical care for a urological issue.

The court accepted the joint submission of a 6.5-year global sentence and, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, sentenced the offender to a further 18 months in custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after attacking a building superintendent with a knife.

The court accepted a joint submission for a four-year sentence, taking into account the offender's schizophrenia, guilty plea, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying enhanced credit for time served, the court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed three years of probation.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference in 2008 but was found unfit to stand trial prior to sentencing.

In 2021, the Ontario Review Board found him permanently unfit and recommended a stay of proceedings, concluding he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Superior Court held a hearing to determine whether to stay the charges under s. 672.851 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the ORB's recommendation, finding that the accused, despite his age and dementia, remained a significant threat to public safety due to his risk of reoffending sexually against children if he gained access to alcohol.

The court concluded a stay would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession offences after assaulting a bystander and brandishing a handgun outside a hotel.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years, while the defence sought 5 to 5.5 years and argued for a time-served sentence based on enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a global sentence of 6 years was appropriate given the gravity of the offences, but reduced the sentence to time served (equivalent to 5 years and 1 month) after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, followed by probation.

This is a sentencing decision for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and simple possession of fentanyl.

The court considered mitigating factors including a guilty plea, harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody (lockdowns, COVID-19), and the offender's background, which included childhood trauma, learning disabilities, mental health issues, substance abuse, and experiences of systemic racism.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record and being on bail for another trafficking offence.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, arguing the gun was used for drug trafficking, which the court rejected due to reasonable doubt.

The defence sought a time-served sentence (2-3 years equivalent).

The judge imposed a time-served sentence, equivalent to a three-year global sentence, emphasizing rehabilitation through probation with conditions for counselling.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Corey Cunningham, who was convicted of attempted murder and theft under $5000.00.

The attempted murder involved a planned attack on his former intimate partner, Christina Elgin, who was pregnant, by stabbing her in the neck.

The Crown sought a life sentence, emphasizing the cold-blooded nature and domestic context.

The defence proposed a sentence of 6 to 11 years, highlighting the offender's lack of prior record, strong family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, finding that while the crime was horrific and required denunciation and deterrence, it was out of character for the offender, and his rehabilitative prospects placed the case at the lower end of the sentencing range for attempted murder.

Credit was given for pre-sentence custody, including an additional 12 months for harsh conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and choking to assist in the commission of a sexual assault involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony, despite inconsistencies regarding intoxication and memory, to be credible on the core facts of non-consensual sexual activity and choking, corroborated by physical injuries and DNA evidence.

The accused's testimony was disbelieved due to contradictions with physical evidence.

The defense of mistake of age was rejected, as the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and was found to be reckless as to her underage status, having ignored "red flags" regarding her appearance and circumstances.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The accused, Yu-Lan He, was convicted of dangerous driving causing death after running a red light due to prolonged inattention, resulting in the death of a pedestrian.

The Crown sought a one-year jail sentence and a five-year driving prohibition, while the defence argued for a suspended sentence, probation, or a conditional sentence.

The court found the accused's moral blameworthiness to be at the lower end of the spectrum for such offences, noting the absence of high-risk behaviours like speeding or impairment.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and considering the availability of a conditional sentence following R. v. Sharma, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, including six months of house arrest, followed by twelve months of peace and good behaviour, and a 3.5-year driving prohibition.

Motaz Haj pleaded guilty to two counts of fentanyl trafficking, one to an undercover officer and one as a party to a sale that resulted in a fatal overdose.

The court considered a joint submission for a six-year sentence, with the primary issue being the credit for pre-sentence custody, particularly concerning harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized the devastating impact of fentanyl and the victim's death as aggravating factors, balanced against the guilty plea, remorse, and difficult custody conditions.

The judge ultimately accepted the joint submission for a six-year sentence, crediting the offender with time served, including enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and a further credit for harsh conditions, followed by a two-year probation period.

R.A. was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against his 11-year-old stepdaughter, C.A. The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and multiple incidents, and mitigating factors, such as R.A.'s pro-social life and lack of criminal record.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences.

Despite the defence's request for a conditional sentence and potential deportation consequences, the court found a non-custodial sentence would be insufficient.

R.A. was sentenced to two years in penitentiary on the more serious count, concurrent to six months on the other, along with mandatory ancillary orders.