R. Roots Gadhia

The three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for the stabbing death of a 22-year-old victim.

The sentencing judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders were the aggressors who tracked down the victim for revenge after an earlier altercation where the victim had cut the principal offender with a knife.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an 'aggravated manslaughter' sentence range, finding the earlier provocation mitigated the offenders' moral blameworthiness.

After applying significant credit for pre-trial custody, harsh jail conditions including triple bunking, and strict bail conditions, the principal offender was sentenced to a further 14 months, the second offender to 6.5 months, and the third offender to time served.

During a first-degree murder trial, an alternate juror reported that another juror had expressed a belief in the accused's guilt before any evidence was called.

The offending juror was discharged.

The accused moved for a mistrial, arguing the remaining jurors may have been tainted.

The court dismissed the application, finding that several other jurors had immediately criticized the offending remark and defended the presumption of innocence, demonstrating that the jury was not tainted.

During a trial for first degree murder where the accused raised self-defence, the accused applied to admit evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence under the Scopelliti framework.

Specifically, the accused sought to introduce evidence of the deceased's habitual possession of a knife and prior use of a racial slur.

The court ruled that the evidence of habitual knife possession was admissible as it indicated a violent tendency.

The court also held that a prior ruling from a mistrial excluding the racial slur evidence was not binding under section 653.1 of the Criminal Code in the interests of justice, and admitted the evidence to demonstrate the deceased's anger and aggressive conduct.

The offender was convicted by a jury of pointing a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he pointed a BB gun at the victim.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the pointing a firearm charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences, the court sentenced the offender to 9 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions and pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was tried for attempted murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing in an apartment building.

During the trial, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that his section 7 Charter rights were violated because the police failed to seize and preserve video surveillance footage from the building's lobby.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were not unacceptably negligent as they had no reason to believe the lobby video was relevant until months later.

Furthermore, the defence knew of the video's existence from the outset but took no steps to obtain it, and the video would not have captured the actual altercation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying substance, and assault against three complainants.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of one complainant, whose evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and noted a complete lack of corroborating forensic or independent evidence, such as security footage, taxicab records, or DNA.

Given the significant evidentiary gaps and credibility issues, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused brought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after a preliminary inquiry judge revoked a prior release order under s. 523(2)(b).

The revocation was based on a modest increase in the strength of the Crown’s identification evidence and two new convictions that had been outstanding at the time of the original bail hearing.

The court held that s. 523(2)(b) does not authorize a de novo bail hearing and requires proof of a substantial or material change in circumstances.

The identified developments did not constitute a sufficient change to justify revoking bail.

The revocation order was vacated and the accused was ordered released on stricter bail with additional sureties and conditions.

In a trial for possession of a loaded firearm, the court ruled on several pre-trial motions and a motion for a directed verdict.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior possession of the same firearm, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also allowed the Crown to ask an eye-witness for an in-dock identification and admitted crime scene photographs verified by other officers.

A directed verdict of acquittal was granted for an obstructing justice charge because providing a false name did not actually obstruct the arresting officer.

However, the motion for a directed verdict on the firearm possession charges was dismissed, as the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

In a first-degree murder trial involving alleged street gang members, the Crown sought to clarify and maintain the admissibility of certain evidence following a pre-trial ruling.

The court reconsidered the admissibility of a YouTube video after correcting a factual misapprehension about its contents, ruling it remained highly probative of gang affiliation and motive.

The court also permitted the Crown to adduce a composite audio recording for voice identification, provided no visual component was shown.

Finally, the court held that numerous handwritten documents and rap lyrics seized from the respondents' apartment were admissible without further redaction, as their probative value regarding gang membership and animus toward rival gangs significantly outweighed their prejudicial effect as bad character evidence.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of two statements made to police and sought the exclusion of derivative evidence (cell phone records and a witness) under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the first statement involuntary due to the Crown's failure to account for a significant period of the accused's custody, but ruled the second statement voluntary.

The court also found breaches of the accused's s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights during his initial investigative detention.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the derivative evidence, finding the breaches were not serious, the impact on the accused's rights was minimal, and the evidence would have been inevitably discovered.

The Crown applied to call a police detective as an expert witness on street gangs in a first-degree murder trial.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the expert was biased and the proposed evidence, including rap videos, letters, and graffiti, was highly prejudicial.

The court found the expert evidence necessary and the detective qualified.

The court admitted most of the videos, letters, and graffiti, finding their probative value in establishing motive and the existence of a criminal organization outweighed their prejudicial effect, but excluded evidence of the accused's prior convictions and certain letters.