Robert M. Wright

The accused, P.M., was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and making child pornography.

During a voir dire, the court found P.M.'s video-recorded statement to police voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The police failed to provide P.M. with a reasonable opportunity to contact his chosen counsel, instead steering him to duty counsel without offering alternatives or documenting his consent to forgo waiting for his preferred lawyer.

The court found the police conduct serious, reflecting an institutional failure, and that the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

J.B.P. was found guilty of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim (R.R.) aged 4-6.

The assaults included showing pornography, forced masturbation, and oral sex.

The Crown sought an 8-year global jail sentence, while the defence sought a 2-years-less-a-day conditional sentence, citing the offender's terminal liver disease.

The court considered the significant aggravating factors, including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, and repetition of offences, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time of the offences, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending due to health, and family support.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, which prioritizes denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, the court imposed a total sentence of four years imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate despite the offender's severe health issues and limited life expectancy.

The accused, Chundi Deng, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 655 days, exceeding the 18-month (547-day) presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted 21 days for defence delay in retaining counsel.

The Crown argued for further deductions for defence delay and COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for additional defence delay, finding the defence actions legitimate.

However, the court recognized the systemic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance, deducting 29 days for trial scheduling delays and a further 40 days as a realistic estimate of the pandemic's impact on trial scheduling in the Scarborough Courthouse.

Despite these deductions, the net delay remained 565 days, still exceeding the Jordan ceiling.

The court found the overall delay unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

Following a trial, Sandy Benyamin was found guilty of criminal harassment against his sister-in-law, Andrea Cheung, involving numerous phone calls and social media posts between April 4 and 6, 2021.

This marked his fourth conviction for criminal harassment.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence followed by 12 months probation and a DNA order, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month jail sentence, a two-year probation order with conditions, and a DNA order, emphasizing the need for denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's prior record and lack of remorse.

The defendant, R.P., was found guilty of four offences against a six-year-old child in her care: assault causing bodily harm (pelvic/scrotum injuries from heated implement), assault with a weapon (stick) and assault (hand) (buttocks injuries), and assault with a weapon (belt) (back injuries).

The Crown sought a four-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of less than two years.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severity and nature of the abuse, which involved multiple incidents, weapons, and a significant breach of trust, exacerbated by the victim's isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' imprisonment, composed of consecutive and concurrent terms for the various offences, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

This decision concerns a breach of a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO).

The offender, Yogathas Yogarajah, had been sentenced for seven offences, including multiple assaults and breaches of probation/release orders, and was serving a 12-month CSO.

He breached the CSO by attending his partner's residence and having contact with her, despite conditions prohibiting this.

The court considered the seriousness of the breach, the offender's extensive history of domestic violence and prior breaches, and the principles governing conditional sentence breach hearings.

The Crown sought full incarceration, while the Defence sought minor changes or a lesser custodial period.

The court ordered an additional 120 days of custody, after which the CSO would resume, and varied the CSO conditions to facilitate entry into a residential treatment program, balancing deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Crown applied under s. 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to S.S.'s youth records to assist in his adult sentencing for manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm.

S.S. had previously been found guilty of assault causing bodily harm as a young person.

The court granted the application, finding that the Crown had a valid and substantial interest in the records, disclosure was not prohibited, and access was necessary for the proper administration of justice, balancing S.S.'s privacy interests against the public interest in a fit sentence for a serious adult re-offence.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from allegations of repeated sexual abuse of a child during babysitting and family visits.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, treated inconsistencies about timing and location as peripheral in light of the complainant's young age at the time of the events, and rejected the accused's and defence witnesses' evidence as illogical and unreliable.

The court further held that a variance between the date range in the Information and the evidence concerning one incident was immaterial under the Criminal Code because time was not an essential element and no prejudice to the defence was shown.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

The accused, G.S., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 635 days, exceeding the 18-month (547-day) presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court deducted 14 days conceded by the defence and a further 72 days for defence-requested adjournments for resolution discussions post-Judicial Pre-Trial (JPT), finding this delay directly attributable to the defence.

The court also recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance, deducting 20 days for administrative scheduling policy changes and an additional 90 days for the systemic backlog's impact on court resources in Scarborough.

After these deductions, the net delay was calculated at 439 days, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the Crown had taken reasonable steps to mitigate delay and that the defence had not demonstrated sustained efforts to expedite proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, J’Aheim Webbe-Wong, was charged with possession of a stolen motor vehicle and failing to comply with a release order.

The trial's central issue was the identity of the driver, based on recognition evidence provided by a police officer.

Despite the officer's credibility, the court found the reliability of the recognition evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, citing limited prior acquaintance, inconsistent description, human inclination to fill gaps, and cross-racial identification limitations.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused, K.F.C., was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his elderly mother's caregiver, Q.Z. The alleged assaults occurred on June 29, 2019.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's and the accused's conflicting accounts.

The court found significant inconsistencies and shifts in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding injuries, phone calls, and prior statements to police, which undermined her credibility.

While the court also had misgivings about the accused's explanations for certain phone calls and timeframes, it ultimately found that the Crown had not proven the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Renata Migdalski was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The trial addressed two main issues: an alleged violation of her section 10(b) Charter right to counsel and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that police acted diligently and the accused did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

Based on consistent witness observations and video evidence, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

Olga Ajgirevitch was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg within two hours of ceasing operation.

She challenged the admissibility of breath samples based on alleged breaches of her Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) and argued the Crown failed to prove the evidentiary requirements for the breath samples.

The court found no Charter breaches, specifically that there was no arbitrary detention or realistic opportunity to consult counsel before the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand.

The court also found the breath samples met the evidentiary requirements despite a deficient sample during the second test.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The defendant, Collin Temoin, faced multiple charges including assault and criminal harassment related to his former girlfriend.

The court assessed conflicting accounts from the complainant, the defendant, and other witnesses regarding four alleged incidents.

The Crown's case relied heavily on credibility findings.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be cautious due to inconsistencies and combative demeanor, while the defendant's candor regarding sending a hurtful email was noted.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of one count of assault (Father's Day incident) and one count of assault (Blake Court incident), dismissing the charges related to the Niagara Falls incident and criminal harassment.

Olga Ajgirevitch applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of her s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The key issues were the start date for calculating delay (arrest vs. information sworn) and whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying delay.

The court, bound by Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents, ruled that the delay clock starts from the date the information was sworn (November 9, 2020), not the arrest date.

It also found that the COVID-19 pandemic and its systemic impacts were exceptional circumstances, justifying a deduction of delay.

After deducting defence-attributable and exceptional delays, the net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.