Ryan Handlarski

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought release on bail.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case, the applicant's background (including a new drug trafficking charge while in custody), the reliability of the proposed surety (the applicant's father, who was untruthful in testimony), the release plan, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, concluding that detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bashir Osman, facing serious firearm charges and breaches of recognizance, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the circumstances of their commission, and the potential for a lengthy sentence.

Special consideration was given to the accused's health (asthma) and the risks posed by COVID-19 in congregant correctional facilities.

The court found that a robust supervision plan, including electronic monitoring and multiple sureties, mitigated public safety concerns.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, ordering the accused's release with strict conditions.

The accused brought a s. 7 Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence, later seeking a jury instruction.

The court found that most alleged police failings did not engage the Crown's duty to preserve evidence as it was never in their possession.

The only potentially lost evidence was nightclub surveillance footage, but its loss was not due to "unacceptable negligence" and its relevance was marginal and speculative.

Therefore, no s. 7 Charter violation was found.

However, the court ruled that a jury instruction on the general inadequacies of the police investigation and the concept of reasonable doubt arising from an "absence of evidence" was appropriate, based on pre-Charter common law principles.

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual exploitation of a 15-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the offender sought a significantly reduced sentence due to PTSD stemming from harsh pre-trial custody conditions on prior unrelated charges.

The court found the PTSD to be a mitigating factor and sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, reduced to 3 years and 211 days after applying enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including lockdowns.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after pulling a knife during a bar fight while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the accused sought a conditional discharge to avoid a criminal record that could impact his employment and immigration status.

The court found that a conditional discharge was in the accused's best interest and not contrary to the public interest, given his lack of prior record, remorse, and the fact that no injuries occurred.

The accused was granted a conditional discharge with 24 months of probation.

The offender was convicted of four counts of trafficking crack cocaine and four counts of possession of property obtained by crime after selling to an undercover officer.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought one year.

The court weighed the offender's prior related record and profit motive against mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and an arbitrary arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration, followed by three years of probation, with 189 days of pre-sentence credit.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence for the heroin charge, while the defence sought two years.

The court sentenced the offender to 28 months for the heroin charge, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The court granted standard 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, plus an additional four months for harsh lockdown conditions and three months for strict house arrest bail conditions, leaving 15 days left to serve.

A two-year probation order and forfeiture of $4,999 were also ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting the victim following a street altercation.

The victim suffered significant injuries including loss of consciousness and facial trauma.

The accused was 18 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal record, though was bound by a common-law peace bond.

The Crown sought a 60-day conditional sentence plus one year probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 30 months probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the violence, the accused's exemplary character, remorse, and future prospects warranted this disposition.

The Crown brought an application to admit the video statements of two accused, Vickerson and Fairbarn, obtained during a large-scale fraud and drug trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn also applied to exclude her statements under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found Vickerson's statements were voluntary and admissible, as he was properly advised of his rights, spoke to duty counsel, and chose to answer questions.

However, the court found Fairbarn's statements were not voluntary due to a combination of factors, including an unrecorded conversation with a detective who allegedly offered inducements, and a failure to fully advise her of her jeopardy regarding the trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn's statements were excluded.

Ganno Abdella was found guilty after trial of trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing objectives, principles, and appellate authority emphasizing penitentiary terms for heroin trafficking.

Despite mitigating factors like her difficult background, lack of criminal record, and low intellectual functioning, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from a penitentiary sentence.

The court also determined her involvement was ongoing, not a "one-off." She was sentenced to 26 months in penitentiary, less three days pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The accused, E.G., was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant, E.G.'s stepdaughter, alleged sexual assaults occurred when she was 15-16 years old, which she initially reported in 1998 but recanted the next day under pressure from her mother.

She re-reported the allegations in 2014 after years of therapy.

E.G. denied the assaults, and his testimony was corroborated by his wife, daughter, and a neighbour, who described a positive home environment and the complainant entrusting her children to E.G. and her mother for extended periods, including international travel.

The court considered the complainant's delayed disclosure and inconsistencies in her testimony, as well as the defence evidence.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the assaults occurred and acquitted E.G.

The applicant, facing numerous charges including conspiracy and trafficking fentanyl, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel.

While the court found that representation by counsel was essential for a fair trial and that the applicant had exhausted Legal Aid options, it concluded she had not established a lack of financial means.

The court noted that the applicant's spouse earned a significant income and had a legal obligation to support her, which she had not pursued.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to a future application on a better evidentiary basis.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code and to operating a motorcycle without insurance contrary to section 3 of the Ontario Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The accused operated a high-performance motorcycle while grossly intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration between 196-231 mg/100mL) and caused the death of a passenger.

A Gardiner hearing was conducted to determine aggravating facts.

The court found the accused voluntarily consumed alcohol, was grossly intoxicated, and that intoxication was a significant cause of the accident.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment, a ten-year driving prohibition, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a $5,000 fine for the insurance offense.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after severely beating his 66-year-old roommate, causing a near-fatal traumatic brain injury.

The attack was unprovoked and occurred while the accused was intoxicated.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, mental health issues, and alcohol addiction as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim and the accused's prior criminal record.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and imposed a sentence of 54 months, less 30 months credit, resulting in 2 years less a day to be served, followed by 3 years of probation.

The accused faced a charge of sexual assault and brought a Charter application to exclude DNA evidence obtained through a warrantless penile swab and to challenge the admissibility of several statements made to police.

The court considered whether the swab constituted a lawful search incident to arrest and whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure.

While the court held that the search did not breach sections 7 or 8 of the Charter due to exigent circumstances and reasonable grounds, it found a breach of section 10(b) because police failed to ensure the accused had meaningful access to counsel regarding the intrusive procedure.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the derivative DNA evidence.

The court also held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s statements were voluntary due to intoxication, lack of caution during initial questioning, and uncertainty about whether the accused had an operating mind.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's late disclosure of his cell phone records.

The records were disclosed after the accused had already testified at the preliminary inquiry, providing an alibi for the time of the alleged robberies.

The court found that the late disclosure violated the accused's rights under s. 7 of the Charter, as it impaired his ability to make full answer and defence.

However, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not justified.

Instead, the court ordered the exclusion of the accused's preliminary inquiry testimony regarding his alibi under s. 24(1) of the Charter, preventing the Crown from using it for cross-examination at trial.

The accused, charged with armed robberies, brought a pre-trial motion seeking disclosure of the Crown's prosecution file regarding a police officer's prior acquittal for manslaughter.

The accused alleged the officer was involved in beating him to extract a confession and sought the file to cross-examine the officer on his propensity for violence.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the requested information was clearly irrelevant, as an acquittal is a verdict of legal innocence and the facts underlying it cannot generally be used to establish propensity or credibility.