Robert Valentine

The accused, Jigme Yeshi and Yeshi Wang Chuk, were jointly charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following a bar altercation.

The critical issues were identity and party liability.

The court found that Jamal Graham instigated an initial exchange, after which Yeshi Wang Chuk produced a knife and, with Jigme Yeshi, pursued and attacked Graham and Sheanna Williams, causing serious stab wounds.

The court relied on eyewitness testimony and photo array identifications, despite witness intoxication and memory discrepancies.

Both accused were convicted of aggravated assault, with other charges stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving, fail to stop for police, and drive while disqualified arising from a high-speed chase on November 17, 2015.

The Crown sought consecutive sentences totalling 12-15 months, while the defence sought a global 12-month sentence, arguing for reduced sentences due to serious immigration consequences.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 12 months (6 months for impaired driving with 3-month credit for restrictive bail conditions, 4 months for fail to stop for police, and 2 months for drive disqualified), along with a 10-year driving prohibition and 3 years probation.

The court considered collateral immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but ensured sentences remained proportionate to the offences.

An indigenous woman pleaded guilty to importing 347 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a three-month custodial sentence in addition to time served, relying on principles of general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation, finding that the offender's circumstances as an indigenous woman, combined with her significant personal trauma, systemic disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, warranted a departure from the ordinary sentencing range.

The court applied the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, emphasizing that the Gladue principles apply to serious offences and that general deterrence cannot override the requirement to consider the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders.

During a trial for offences related to a stabbing outside a bar, a miscommunication arose between the Crown, defence counsel, and the trial judge regarding whether the accused had admitted identity and presence at the scene.

After the Crown closed its case without calling identification evidence, the misunderstanding became apparent.

The Crown brought an application to enforce pre-trial admissions made by defence counsel.

The court allowed the Crown to re-open its case, held one accused to his pre-trial admission of presence, but released the other accused from an admission regarding the voluntariness of a statement because the Crown had changed its position on how the statement would be used.

The accused applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to a Part VI intercept authorization, alleging a violation of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The investigation stemmed from an armed robbery at a pawn shop where the owner was shot.

The applicants argued the information to obtain (ITO) relied on unreliable confidential informant information and that police failed to exhaust alternative investigative methods.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, even excluding the contested informant information, the remaining evidence—including DNA matches and association evidence—provided reasonable grounds for the authorization.

A supplementary application regarding police obtaining contact information from Ontario Works without a warrant was also dismissed.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown sought certiorari and mandamus to review a preliminary inquiry decision that committed two accused to trial for second‑degree murder rather than first‑degree murder and discharged another accused.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider the whole of the evidence and improperly rejected inferences supporting constructive first‑degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code based on unlawful confinement.

The reviewing court held that the justice committed a jurisdictional error by failing to address evidence of unlawful confinement of a second victim, which could support first‑degree murder within the same transaction.

Mandamus issued requiring committal of two respondents to trial for first‑degree murder.

The application regarding the third respondent was dismissed because the justice properly applied the limited weighing permitted for circumstantial evidence and committed no jurisdictional error.