Robert Tomovski

Marek Adam pleaded guilty to eight charges related to four armed robberies and four wearing a disguise charges.

The robberies involved the use of a pellet gun and an axe, with victims confined.

The Crown sought a 7-year global prison term, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and guilty plea, balanced against the seriousness and number of offences, and the impact on victims.

The court also addressed the parity principle with a co-accused who received a 7-year sentence and the collateral consequence of deportation for the non-citizen offender.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in an actual sentence of 4 years and 4 months.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to vary his house arrest conditions to allow a work exception.

He argued that his inability to afford his counsel of choice and his desire to work to pay for counsel constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed plan lacked adequate surety supervision and that the applicant's financial difficulties regarding his counsel of choice did not amount to a material change affecting the secondary ground concerns that justified the original strict conditions.

The applicant was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking on October 3, 2015.

He applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was scheduled for March 13-16, 2017.

The court found that the defence demonstrated sustained effort to expedite proceedings through timely disclosure requests and strategic trial date setting.

The overall delay of 17 months and 6 days was found to be markedly longer than the expected 13-14 months for a case of this type in the jurisdiction.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking 0.77 grams of crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 13 months, while the defence submitted that a 5-month sentence was appropriate.

The court considered the accused's guilty plea, remorse, and lack of aggravating factors as mitigating circumstances.

The accused was sentenced to 5 months in custody, less 3 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The defendant was convicted of Operation Over 80 following a collision with a motorcyclist at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including brain damage, vision impairment, and ongoing physical and psychological trauma.

The court found the defendant's impaired driving contributed to the collision despite the Crown proceeding on a lesser charge that excluded causation.

The defendant was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment served intermittently on weekends, with 12 months probation and no enhanced driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle collision at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The Crown alleged the accused struck and seriously injured a civilian while his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.

The accused raised multiple Charter issues including claims regarding statutorily compelled statements, detention and timely access to counsel, language comprehension difficulties, and lost evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts after addressing the Charter applications and determining that the breath test evidence was admissible.

Following a jury trial, two offenders were convicted of manslaughter arising from a group swarming attack outside a restaurant that resulted in the victim’s death.

The sentencing judge assessed aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the unarmed victim, the coordinated nature of the attack, the use of golf clubs and a golf club shaft as weapons, and the offenders’ flight from the scene.

Mitigating considerations included the offenders’ youth, limited or absent criminal records, expressions of remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court rejected submissions that harsh pre‑sentence custody conditions warranted additional mitigation beyond statutory credit.

Applying sentencing principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and parity, the court imposed identical penitentiary sentences.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased concerning his belief that the accused had orchestrated a prior theft of his money.

The defence objected on the basis that the statements would introduce prejudicial and untestable allegations of bad character.

The court held that the deceased’s statements were admissible as evidence of the declarant’s state of mind and were relevant to establishing potential motive and context for confrontation between the deceased and the accused.

However, the court limited the scope of admissibility to the deceased’s belief itself and excluded statements recounting the accused’s alleged response about the stolen money.

The jury would receive a limiting instruction restricting the use of the evidence to motive rather than proof of bad character.

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under s.745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought an 18‑year period while the defence argued for the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the offender’s criminal record, involvement in drug trafficking, illegal firearm possession, and conduct surrounding the offence, including returning to deliver a final fatal shot after the victim had fallen.

Although the victim had been the initial aggressor and armed with knives, the offender’s criminal lifestyle and aggravating conduct warranted a significant increase above the minimum.

A period of 16 years of parole ineligibility was imposed.

During a jury trial for homicide arising from a restaurant assault, the court considered whether the defence of abandonment should be left with the jury for two accused alleged to be parties to the offence under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the Supreme Court’s formulation of the abandonment defence in R v. Gauthier and the “air of reality” test, the court examined whether the evidence could reasonably support findings that the accused intended to withdraw, communicated that withdrawal in a timely and unequivocal manner, and took proportional steps to neutralize their participation.

Evidence from one accused that he attempted to discourage the assault and physically intervened was capable of supporting the defence.

By contrast, the other accused’s single statement discouraging a fight and subsequent inaction did not satisfy the elements of abandonment.

The defence was therefore left with the jury for one accused but not the other.

During a jury trial for homicide-related offences, the accused sought a ruling preventing the Crown from arguing that marks on the deceased’s clothing were footwear impressions attributable to the accused.

The forensic investigator described several impressions on the clothing but did not identify them as footwear impressions and could not match them to the footwear of either accused.

The court held that the Crown’s proposed inference lacked the necessary foundational evidence and would amount to impermissible speculation.

Applying principles governing circumstantial evidence and inference‑drawing, the court concluded that the primary fact that the impressions were caused by footwear had not been established.

Crown counsel was therefore prohibited from inviting the jury to conclude that the impressions were footwear impressions or attributable to the accused.

During a jury trial for homicide, the Crown sought to cross‑examine an accused about a security video depicting two vehicles near the crime scene and to argue in closing that the vehicles belonged to the accused and a Crown witness.

Defence counsel objected, arguing there was no good‑faith basis for the proposed questioning and that the Crown had earlier indicated the video would not be relied upon.

The court found that defence counsel had reasonably relied on the Crown’s stated position and that the Crown’s belief linking the vehicles to the accused was not reasonably supported by evidence.

Allowing the questioning or submissions would create unfair prejudice and invite speculation by the jury.

The court therefore prohibited the Crown from cross‑examining the accused on the video or making submissions linking the vehicles to the accused or the witness.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

On December 10, 2012, the accused was driving a 2000 Honda Civic at speeds between 84 and 122 km/h in a 60 km/h zone on Brimley Road in Toronto when he lost control, struck a tree, and injured two passengers.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court found that while a conditional discharge would be in the accused's best interests, it would not be in the public interest given the accused's prior speeding convictions, the injuries sustained, and the need for deterrence in dangerous driving cases.

The offender was convicted of four counts of fraud over $5000 after defrauding four victims of a total of $261,000 by falsely posing as a wealthy investor and philanthropist.

The court found the offender's cultivation and breach of the victims' trust to be a significant aggravating factor.

The offender was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment (reflecting 18 months less 6 months' pre-trial credit), followed by two years' probation.

The court also ordered restitution of $172,000 and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with a consecutive two-year sentence in default of payment.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him discard a package containing crack cocaine while fleeing.

The central issue was whether the accused possessed the drugs and whether cash found on him was proceeds of crime.

The court accepted the police officer’s evidence that he saw the accused drop the package and later recovered it from a garden below the porch.

The accused’s explanation regarding the origin of the cash and his possession of two cellphones was rejected as not credible.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessed cash obtained through trafficking.

The offender was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding three individuals of $139,000 through a fake investment scheme.

The Crown sought 21 to 36 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender posed no danger to the community.

After applying 10 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a 13-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation, along with a restitution order for the full amount defrauded.

During a criminal trial for robbery, the court considered whether to conduct a voir dire into the competence of two proposed Amharic interpreters who lacked accreditation under the Ministry of the Attorney General’s new interpreter testing regime.

Both interpreters had failed the Ministry’s English‑only interpreter test and had previously been accredited under an earlier system later found invalid.

The court held that the failed test results demonstrated that the interpreters had not reached the required threshold of competence.

Given the absence of accreditation and the judge’s inability to independently assess Amharic interpretation, the court concluded that a voir dire would serve no useful purpose.

The interpreters were therefore deemed incompetent to act in the trial.

The appellants were convicted of offences relating to the theft and sale of firearms.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the W. (D.) framework to the accused's testimony, improperly treated a lack of memory as an undisclosed alibi, and failed to exercise sufficient caution when accepting the evidence of an unsavoury witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, appropriately cautioned himself regarding the unsavoury witness, and provided adequate reasons in accordance with R. v. R.E.M.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in finding he was not detained during police questioning, which he claimed resulted in a Charter violation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest at the time of questioning, and that the questioning was general and non-coercive.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the court found the trial judge's credit for stringent bail conditions was reasonable given the serious nature of the crimes and the appellant's prior record.

Both appeals were dismissed.