Robin Parker

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with a term of a recognizance.

The assault involved striking a vulnerable 66-year-old woman with an extremely low IQ in the face, causing significant bruising and swelling.

Days after release on bail, the offender breached a no-contact condition by approaching the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, with credit for 305 days of pre-sentence custody at the 1.5:1 ratio plus an additional 5 months credit for harsh detention conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in 1 month remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) sought certiorari to quash a Youth Court decision that denied TCHC access to a young person's (R.V.) criminal justice records.

TCHC intended to use these records to commence eviction proceedings against R.V. and his family at the Landlord and Tenant Board on grounds of "illegality" and "community safety." The Youth Court had denied access, prioritizing R.V.'s privacy, rehabilitation, and reintegration under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

By the time the certiorari application reached the Superior Court, R.V. had withdrawn from the proceedings, and TCHC had decided not to pursue eviction, rendering the matter moot.

The Superior Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no persisting adversarial context, no significant public interest that would justify hearing a hypothetical case, and that the issue of "desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice" under s.119 of the YCJA was fact-driven and best left to the Youth Court's expertise.

The defendant was charged with common assault and assault with a weapon (a clothes iron) against his spouse on August 29, 2018.

The Crown and defence presented conflicting accounts of a domestic altercation that occurred in the morning following an unresolved dispute the night before.

The complainant testified that the defendant strangled her and pressed a hot iron against her chest, causing injury.

The defendant testified that the complainant initiated physical contact, that he did not strangle her, and that she applied the iron to his chest first, which he then removed to prevent further burns.

The court found that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps and the irreconcilable nature of the two testimonial accounts.

This decision addresses a voir dire to determine the admissibility of police statements made by Marcia Gittens and Horace McCalla, who are charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to their son.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing voluntariness and constitutional compliance.

The defence contended that the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found Ms. Gittens' statement inadmissible due to involuntariness, influenced by inducements, her emotional state, and police misrepresentations regarding the video recording and the duty to caution.

Additionally, her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when psychological detention crystallized during the interview, leading to exclusion under s. 24(2).

Conversely, Mr. McCalla's statement was deemed voluntary and admissible, as the police adequately informed him of his rights and potential legal jeopardy, and he was not found to be detained.

The appellant appealed his conviction for arson relating to a fire at his home on April 5, 2011, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant advanced two main arguments: first, that counsel failed to properly cross-examine the only alternative suspect, his former fiancée; and second, that counsel overrode his desire to testify and improperly failed to call other defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish the prejudice component of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.

The court noted that the trial judge's conclusion that the alternative suspect's involvement was implausible was not subject to palpable and overriding error, and that the appellant had signed a written acknowledgement indicating his informed decision not to testify.

The appellant appealed a decision concerning the standard of care owed by a condominium corporation for common elements security.

The court found that the condominium corporation exercised reasonable care by implementing a motion sensor system, hiring a licensed security company, installing CCTV, and establishing security protocols.

The appellant failed to provide expert evidence to prove the Board's decision was unreasonable or foreseeably caused the loss.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

A motion for directions brought by counsel in an appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The applicant sought access to transcripts of cross-examinations on affidavits to assess potential intervener status and to clear his professional reputation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the intervener application and no basis to provide transcripts to a non-party to support a collateral issue unrelated to the core appeal.

The defendant in a civil action for sexual assault brought a motion seeking a declaration that he had not breached the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 30.1.01) or, alternatively, an order to exempt certain documents from it.

The defendant's civil counsel had provided the plaintiff's compelled documentary productions, including sensitive medical and counselling records, to his criminal defence counsel for use in parallel criminal proceedings to impeach the plaintiff's credibility, without prior notice or court directions.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the impeachment exception in Rule 30.1.01(6) is not automatic and requires parties to seek directions from the civil court, ordinarily on notice to the producing party, before using discovery evidence for impeachment in another proceeding.

The court found that the defendant had breached the deemed undertaking.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order requiring a lawyer to reimburse approximately $500,000 in costs for a Monitor's investigation into his practice regarding Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) claims.

The lawyer resisted and sought a public statement clearing his name, along with costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the lawyer had breached the IRSSA by facilitating third-party loans, he had not misappropriated funds or acted with malicious intent.

The court dismissed both Canada's request for investigation costs and the lawyer's request for costs and a public statement.

In the context of a mutual legal assistance proceeding under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, individuals sought Charter remedies against both the provincial and federal Crowns following withdrawn criminal charges and a discontinued extradition process.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to be removed as a party and to strike portions of the requested relief.

The court held that the federal Crown was not a party to the sending order application because the Attorney General of Ontario was the “competent authority” responsible for the process under the Act.

The court further found that the requested Charter remedies relating to extradition proceedings could not be pursued in the absence of an active proceeding under the Extradition Act and would improperly interfere with executive and prosecutorial functions.

The motion was granted and the impugned relief was struck.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Japan, applied to commit the respondent for extradition to face a charge of using a forged passport.

The respondent cross-applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing the extradition was an abuse of process because Japan's true motive was to interrogate him about an unsolved 1995 triple murder.

The respondent also sought to exclude evidence obtained from an accomplice who was on death row in China.

The court dismissed the cross-applications, finding that Japan's dual investigative and prosecutorial purposes did not constitute an abuse of process, and that the accomplice evidence was neither manifestly unreliable nor gathered abusively.

Finding sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and the respondent's identity, the court ordered the respondent committed for extradition.