Robert Kozak

The accused, Khalid Mohamed, was charged with second degree murder in the stabbing death of Steven Burns.

The facts were largely undisputed: Mohamed stabbed Burns, causing his death.

The central issue was whether Mohamed acted in self-defence or whether provocation would reduce the charge to manslaughter.

The court found that Mohamed had been robbed and assaulted by Burns and others, and that Mohamed stabbed Burns during a struggle for control of a knife.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohamed’s actions were unreasonable in the circumstances, and acquitted him of second degree murder.

This decision concerns a multi-count fraud prosecution against Richard Belbas, who was tried on 21 counts arising from four indictments.

The court reviews the elements of criminal fraud, the assessment of credibility, and the application of the law to a series of factual scenarios involving alleged fraudulent contracting and business practices.

The court finds Belbas guilty on multiple counts of fraud over and under $5,000, as well as breach of probation, and acquits on several counts where the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction.

The accused, Khalid Mohamed, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a Scopelliti application seeking to introduce evidence of the victim's prior violent convictions to support a self-defence claim.

The Crown conceded the relevance of some convictions but opposed the entire record.

The court, applying principles from Scopelliti and Golov, found that certain convictions for assault with a weapon, break and enter, assault, and possession of property obtained by crime were probative and admissible, while others were not.

The application was granted in part.

The defendant, Brent Mehagan, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including five counts of making child pornography, one count of criminal harassment, and five counts of voyeurism involving over 240 victims.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the systematic and covert nature of the crimes, the large number of victims, the significant psychological impact on victims and the community, and the defendant's prior related conviction for possession of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included the voluntary plea, acknowledgment of the scope of harm, expressed remorse, and engagement in counselling.

Gladue factors were also considered due to the defendant's Indigenous background and disassociation from cultural roots.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly for child-related offenses, while also considering the defendant's progress towards rehabilitation.

A total sentence of 38 months imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and onerous house arrest conditions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sample, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, a 10-year prohibition from certain public places and internet use for unlawful purposes or photographing females under 16, and forfeiture of seized devices.

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

The accused, Ricky Keewasin, was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender.

The court considered a joint submission on sentence for the index offences and a long-term supervision order, but the designation as dangerous offender versus long-term offender was contested.

The court, after reviewing pre-sentence and Gladue reports, victim impact statements, and expert psychiatric evidence, found the accused to be a dangerous offender due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, treatment-resistant substance abuse, and antisocial personality disorder.

The court accepted the joint submission for an eight-year concurrent sentence for the index offences, less credit for time served, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, and ancillary orders including DNA sample, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was found guilty of possession and making child pornography available.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day concurrent for both counts, plus three years probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought the mandatory minimum of one year concurrent.

The court accepted the Crown's position, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, noting the offender's lack of genuine remorse and active distribution of child pornography.

The accused, an Aboriginal woman, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing her common-law spouse during an alcohol-fueled altercation.

The court considered Gladue principles, the accused's history of trauma and substance abuse, and the aggravating factor of spousal violence.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, reduced to 657 days after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The Crown sought a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused on bail, arguing errors in law and that the decision was clearly inappropriate, primarily on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The reviewing judge found no error in law regarding the Justice of the Peace's handling of the surety's cash deposit or her application of bail principles.

The judge also determined that the decision to release the accused was not 'clearly inappropriate,' given the robust release plan and the Justice of the Peace's positive assessment of the surety.

Consequently, the Crown's application for review was dismissed, upholding the accused's pre-trial release.

The 65-year-old accused, a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background, was found guilty of possessing a large quantity of child pornography.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of six months.

The court weighed the significant mitigating factors, including the accused's low risk of reoffending and positive community history, against the aggravating factor of the large collection of images.

The court sentenced the accused to nine months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation, along with ancillary orders.

The accused applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code while charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, arguing detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered Gladue factors relating to the accused’s Indigenous background, including residential school impacts, foster care history, and substance abuse issues, and reviewed a proposed surety plan involving the accused residing with his grandmother in a remote First Nation community.

Despite acknowledging the suitability of the proposed surety and the presence of Gladue factors, the court found that the accused’s extensive history of violent offences and repeated breaches of court orders created a substantial likelihood of further offending if released.

Detention was therefore ordered on the secondary ground.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing without reasonable excuse to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by finding he was capable of providing a sample despite evidence he was vomiting, coughing, and complaining of chest pain, and by failing to properly apply the W.(D.) credibility framework.

He also raised a new ground alleging procedural unfairness because the trial proceeded in his absence contrary to s.650(1).

The court held that s.650(1) does not apply to summary conviction trials and that ss.800(2) and 803(2)(a) permitted the trial to proceed in the accused’s absence, particularly where defence counsel consented.

The appellate judge found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings and concluded the evidence reasonably supported the conviction.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of the right to counsel and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The defence argued that the accused was not advised of her right to consult French-speaking duty counsel and that breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found no Charter breach, as the accused understood her rights in both French and English, indicated no language preference, and did not voice concerns about understanding duty counsel.

The court also found that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, with police acting reasonably throughout the detention and testing process.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender designation for the accused following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault and breach of probation arising from a violent stabbing incident.

The court found the accused met the statutory test for Dangerous Offender status based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving weapons and violence while under court supervision, coupled with substance abuse and demonstrated inability to restrain behaviour.

However, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 33 months imprisonment (less presentence custody credit) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order rather than an indeterminate sentence, finding that with intensive treatment, anti-alcohol medication, and structured supervision, there was a reasonable expectation that public safety could be adequately protected.

The accused brought a motion under s. 629 of the Criminal Code challenging the jury panel on the basis that the jury roll for the Thunder Bay district was not representative due to inadequate inclusion of First Nations persons living on reserves.

The motion relied on prior decisions criticizing the process for obtaining band lists and argued that insufficient changes had been made to address systemic underrepresentation.

The court reviewed evidence regarding steps taken by the Ministry of the Attorney General and local court officials, including revised procedures, outreach to band councils, offers to meet with communities, and efforts to clarify Privacy Act concerns.

Applying jurisprudence on representativeness and the sheriff’s duty of reasonable diligence under the Juries Act, the court held that reasonable efforts had been made despite continued refusals by some band councils to provide lists.

The accused failed to establish partiality or misconduct by the sheriff.