Robert F. Goldstein

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.

Following the accused's conviction for manslaughter, the Crown applied for a section 752.1 assessment to determine whether the accused might be declared a Dangerous Offender or Long-term Offender.

The court granted the application, finding reasonable grounds to believe the accused could be found to be a Dangerous Offender based on the brutality of the killing.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused's ability to control his mental illness while in custody and his response to provocation negated the assessment order.

The offender pleaded guilty to laundering the proceeds of crime contrary to s. 462.31(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, knowing that the funds were obtained as a result of fraud over $5,000.

The offender's role in a sophisticated international fraud scheme involving a fictitious company was to set up corporate profiles and bank accounts, and to handle the proceeds of crime.

Six overseas victims lost approximately US$238,000.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew for the next four months, and standard conditions for the remainder.

A restitution order was made in the amount of CDN$150,783.

The court declined to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture despite the offender's prior fraud-like conviction, considering the significant restitution already made and the draconian consequences of default.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of his nephew, causing catastrophic injuries resulting in permanent quadriplegia and confinement to a wheelchair.

The court imposed a sentence of 7½ years (90 months) less a day, with credit for 5½ years (66 months) of pre-sentence custody, leaving 2 years less a day to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court balanced the devastating and life-altering nature of the victim's injuries against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, sincere remorse, difficult upbringing, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a child victim aged 11 or 12 years old.

The offence involved two separate incidents of sexual touching, including direct contact with the victim's genitalia.

After a lengthy procedural history spanning over two years, including an unsuccessful application to strike the guilty plea and a fitness assessment confirming the accused's fitness to stand trial, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day with six months credit for time served, resulting in 18 months remaining custody.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the guilty plea, family support, and the accused's age and cognitive deficits, finding that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence.

The court also imposed a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and section 161 prohibition orders, along with 12 months probation.

The Ontario Securities Commission appealed the acquittal of Stephan Katmarian on four counts of securities violations related to the promotion of Peblik Inc., a cryptocurrency token purportedly backed by the Thierry Mine.

The trial judge acquitted Katmarian on all counts.

On appeal, the Superior Court allowed the appeal on Count 1 (fraud), finding the trial judge erred in law regarding the element of deprivation by requiring proof of detrimental reliance rather than risk of deprivation.

The Court dismissed the appeals on Counts 2 (misleading statements to the Commission), 3 (unregistered trading in securities), and 4 (distribution without prospectus).

The Court entered a conviction on Count 1 and remanded for sentencing.

The court considered whether a justice of the peace erred by refusing to order an in-person trial for a defendant facing Highway Traffic Act charges, instead leaving the decision to the prosecution.

The court found that while the justice of the peace erred in law by not applying the correct statutory test, this was not a jurisdictional error and certiorari was not available.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses whether the accused, Peter Nygard, put his character in issue during his evidence-in-chief in a multi-complainant sexual assault trial, and the resulting scope of permitted Crown cross-examination.

The court found that Nygard did put his character in issue by repeatedly asserting he was not the type of person to commit the offences charged.

The ruling details the careful limits placed on the Crown’s cross-examination to avoid undue prejudice, and provides a thorough analysis of the law regarding character evidence and rebuttal in criminal trials.

The court sentenced Keron Alvarez for aggravated assault following a two-on-one attack that left the victim, David Shellnutt, with life-threatening injuries.

The decision reviews the facts, procedural history, impact on the victim, Alvarez’s background and criminal record, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found joint liability based on common intention, rejected provocation as a defence, and imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence (less pre-sentence custody credit), with ancillary orders.

The decision discusses the range of sentence for aggravated assault and the principles of sentencing, including rehabilitation, deterrence, and denunciation.

The court sentenced Marlon Ramon-Vasquez for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the offender’s background, the impact of fentanyl on the community, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and significant rehabilitative steps, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The court found Tekele Ogbamichael guilty of sexual assault in four counts and guilty of the lesser included offence of assault on one count, following a series of incidents on public transit in the Greater Toronto Area.

The decision details the evidence of each complainant, the police investigation, and the application of cross-count similar fact evidence to establish identity.

The court found the similarities between the incidents—modus operandi, description, and circumstances—were so striking as to make coincidence highly improbable.

The judge also addressed the frailties of eyewitness identification and the use of circumstantial evidence, ultimately concluding that the Crown had proven identity and the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court considered an application by Adrian Davey to stay proceedings on the ground of entrapment after he pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court reviewed the sufficiency of disclosure to the defence and whether police had reasonable suspicion before offering Davey the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the police had reasonable suspicion at the relevant time and that the defence was able to make full answer and defence.

This decision provides the full reasons for the sentencing of Alexander Raybe, who pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm stemming from separate incidents in August and November 2021, both involving the discharge of a firearm in residential areas.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody, with consecutive sentences for each offence.

The judge considered aggravating factors such as the discharge of firearms and the dangerous nature of the incidents, and mitigating factors including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, lack of prior record, difficult upbringing, and experience with systemic racism.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for firearms offences, while also applying the principles of totality and restraint.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year and a life firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused, Jamaal Koehler, pleaded guilty to six counts including human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and administering a noxious substance (fentanyl) to the victim, N.F., between late 2019 and early 2020.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the brutal nature of the offenses, the administration of fentanyl, intimate partner violence, threats, and the accused's criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, sparing the victim from testifying, productive time in custody, and a rehabilitation plan, though tempered by poor bail compliance.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and totality, and considered relevant case law on sentencing ranges for human trafficking and sexual assault.

The court also addressed the "Morris" factor regarding systemic racism and the "Duncan" credit for harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, particularly an untreated medical issue.

A global sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment was imposed, with specific credit for time served, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order.

The offender, Mr. Swaby, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including human trafficking, receiving material benefits from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and drug trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the manipulation of vulnerable victims through drugs and alcohol, the use of violence, and the presence of a firearm in an apartment with a child.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, insight into his substance abuse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 11 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a restitution order of $30,000.

The applicant, Ramon Williams, sought to withdraw his guilty pleas to multiple counts of human trafficking, procuring, receiving material benefit from sexual services, and assault, arguing the pleas were not fully informed due to a misunderstanding of immigration consequences and appeal rights.

The court found the pleas were voluntary and fully informed, that the applicant received sound legal advice, and that his assertion of being unaware of appeal rights or immigration consequences was not credible.

The court concluded that the applicant was experiencing buyer's remorse and dismissed the application to withdraw the guilty pleas, directing the matter to proceed to sentencing.

This decision concerns an application for state-funded counsel for a summary conviction appeal.

The applicant, convicted of assault, assault with a weapon, and choking, sought legal assistance after Legal Aid Ontario denied his application.

Applying the two-stage test from *R. v. Abbey*, the court found the applicant met the financial eligibility criterion.

However, the court determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds of appeal, as his submissions primarily sought to re-litigate factual findings rather than identify legal errors.

Consequently, the application for state-funded counsel was dismissed.