Salvatore Caramanna

The offender pled guilty to possessing and accessing child pornography.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine disputed facts regarding his motivations.

The offender, a refugee and survivor of severe childhood sexual abuse, argued his actions were driven by trauma and a desire to expose abuse, rather than sexual gratification.

The court accepted he posed a very low risk of reoffending and suffered from PTSD, but found he likely derived some gratification.

Balancing the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence with the offender's exceptional mitigating circumstances and the severe collateral immigration consequences he faced, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year Internet prohibition.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario brought professional misconduct proceedings against the respondent for failing to keep proper records of her speech-language pathology services.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.

The respondent was ordered to serve a one-month suspension, complete an individualized mentorship program and a medical record-keeping course, receive a reprimand, and pay $5,000 in costs.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit non-expert recognition evidence from the father and stepmother of one of the accused, who viewed video surveillance of the suspects.

The defence argued the evidence was inadmissible as the witnesses did not definitively identify the accused and their evidence was tainted by police.

The court held that the witnesses' long knowledge of the accused and their observations regarding clothing and physical characteristics were relevant to identification, and the evidence was admissible, with its weight to be determined by the jury.

In a first-degree murder trial, the defence brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the Crown's closing address to the jury.

The alleged errors included misstating evidence, introducing unelicited evidence, mocking defence counsel and witnesses, and improperly commenting on the burden of proof.

The court reviewed each alleged impropriety, finding some instances of improper conduct but concluding that, individually or cumulatively, they did not fatally wound the trial process or deprive the accused of a fair trial to the extent that a mistrial was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, with the court indicating that corrective instructions would be given to the jury.

Defence counsel for Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Wright brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging that Crown counsel adduced impermissible bad character evidence ("snitches get stitches") during re-examination of a witness, thereby wounding trial fairness.

The Crown argued the re-examination was appropriate given the cross-examination.

The court denied the motion, finding that while the defence was prejudiced by a prior ruling limiting cross-examination on a witness's inconsistent statements, this could be remedied by allowing further cross-examination.

The court concluded that the "snitches get stitches" evidence, while potentially prejudicial, did not rise to the level requiring a mistrial, especially with proper jury instructions, and did not constitute a "catastrophic" defect to trial fairness.

Philip Fitzpatrick, jointly charged with murder, brought a K.G.B. application to admit two police statements made by his mother, Cheryl Hall, for the truth of their contents regarding the shooter's identity.

The Crown was not opposed if the statements were edited and Ms. Hall could be cross-examined.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding necessity due to Ms. Hall's recantation/unwillingness to adopt her prior statements, and threshold reliability due to procedural safeguards (availability for cross-examination, videotaping) and circumstantial guarantees (statements made hours after shooting, no influence, no leading questions, no motive to lie).

The court ruled the statements admissible for their truth, to be shown to the jury in their entirety with appropriate edits, and permitted the Crown to cross-examine Ms. Hall on the identification and her state of mind.

In a murder trial, the defendants brought motions regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Philip Fitzpatrick sought to admit antemortem statements by the deceased concerning a dispute over counterfeit money and guns, arguing relevance to witness credibility and narrative.

Evan Wright sought to cross-examine a witness on the deceased's drug trafficking activities, also arguing narrative.

The Crown opposed both.

The court dismissed the application for antemortem statements under the state of mind exception, finding them not relevant and highly prejudicial, though allowing limited questioning on the deceased being ripped off and taking guns.

The court also dismissed the application to admit evidence of the deceased's drug trafficking, finding it irrelevant and highly prejudicial, noting the jury already had sufficient information about the deceased's background.

Philip Fitzpatrick brought a pre-trial application seeking leave to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses regarding a Crown witness, Marquis Grant-Mentis, and his alleged involvement in the murder of Brandon Hall, or alternatively, to argue that one of the perpetrators was a black man other than Mr. Fitzpatrick.

The Crown opposed, arguing no air of reality to the defence.

The court applied the 'air of reality' test, considering whether the evidence could support the inference of an alternate suspect and establish a sufficient connection and opportunity.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, surveillance video interpretation, shoe exchange, and the third party's knowledge of intimate details, met the 'opportunity threshold' and provided an air of reality to the third-party suspect defence.

The application was allowed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder alongside a co-accused, applied for severance under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a joint trial would violate his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time, as the co-accused's counsel was unavailable until six months past the Jordan ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the strong public interest in joint trials for co-accused alleged to have acted in concert outweighed the anticipated delay, which was partially justified by the complexity of a multi-accused trial and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of first-degree murder, arguing the preliminary inquiry justice committed jurisdictional error by relying on insufficient circumstantial evidence of identity.

The reviewing judge found no jurisdictional error, concluding that the preliminary inquiry justice properly engaged in a limited weighing of the evidence, including DNA on a glove, video surveillance, clothing similarities, and association with the co-accused, to determine that a reasonable inference of guilt was available.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash the discharge of the respondents on various criminal organization and conspiracy charges following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional errors by failing to consider the evidence as a whole, failing to test the evidence against the essential elements of the offences, and improperly weighing competing inferences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly assessed the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and that any alleged errors in assessing sufficiency were within his jurisdiction and not subject to prerogative review.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference relating to alleged inappropriate touching of his niece between 2005 and 2008.

The accused sought to admit evidence of extrinsic sexual abuse of the complainant under the Criminal Code provisions governing admissibility of such evidence.

The complainant challenged the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions granting her standing and the right to counsel at the admissibility voir dire.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge and addressed the question of the complainant's access to the defence application record, determining that while service is not statutorily mandated, judicial discretion permits controlled access through appointed counsel to preserve trial integrity.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his niece for alleged inappropriate touching between 2005 and 2008.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of extrinsic sexual abuse of the complainant by a third party to support a theory of fabrication.

The court conducted an admissibility voir dire under section 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine whether evidence of the complainant's prior sexual abuse by another individual was admissible.

The Crown conceded the evidence was capable of being admissible.

The court allowed the application in part, permitting limited evidence regarding the complainant's failure to disclose the accused's abuse when she reported similar abuse by the third party, while restricting cross-examination on inconsistencies in the complainant's account of the third party's abuse.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, sought an order permitting the admission of evidence of extrinsic sexual abuse of the complainant.

The applicant challenged the constitutional validity of sections 278.93 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the statutory procedure for determining admissibility of extrinsic sexual history and private records compels disclosure of defence evidence and strategy in advance of trial, breaching sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The applicant also contended that granting the complainant standing on the admissibility voir dire creates an appearance of unfairness.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory provisions can be applied in a manner consistent with the principle against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial, and the complainant's rights to privacy and equality, provided that applications under section 278.93 are brought during cross-examination of the complainant rather than as pre-trial motions.

This ruling addresses six substantive pre-charge issues in a manslaughter jury trial.

The court decided to leave the defence of consent to fight with the jury for the accused Zenczuk, but excluded evidence of his post-offence laughter as it lacked probative value and carried high prejudice.

For accused Clare, the court declined to instruct the jury on aiding or on s. 21(2) liability due to insufficient evidence of a common intention to commit a group assault.

The court also clarified the instruction regarding the inference of encouraging words uttered by Clare and limited the admissibility of the victim's criminal record to only the most recent assault conviction, deeming older convictions too remote to be probative of current disposition.

This ruling addresses the appropriate jury instruction when directed verdicts of acquittal and stays of proceedings are granted against some, but not all, defendants in a joint criminal trial.

The court considered arguments from defence counsel, who sought to withhold reasons for the defendants' departure, and the Crown, who advocated for instructions consistent with R. v. Rowbotham.

The judge decided to instruct the jury on the directed verdicts and stays, have the Crown enter stays in the jury's presence, and provide a cautionary instruction to prevent speculation and ensure individual assessment of guilt for the remaining defendants.

This decision provides supplemental reasons for directed verdict applications in a criminal trial involving charges of manslaughter, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought to rely on s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code to establish liability for manslaughter against all defendants, clarifying a previous misunderstanding of their position.

The court, however, found that even with the application of s. 21(2), there was insufficient evidence to establish a common intention among the defendants to commit a group assault on the pedestrians, which is a prerequisite for extended liability under s. 21(2).

Consequently, the earlier directed verdicts of acquittal for manslaughter against two defendants and assault causing bodily harm against two others remained undisturbed.

The court ruled on directed verdict applications for four defendants charged with manslaughter, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm following a fatal altercation.

The judge dismissed the assault with a weapon charge for all defendants due to insufficient evidence.

Manslaughter charges were dismissed for two defendants (Ampadu and Paniccia) but proceeded for two others (Clare and Zenczuk).

Assault causing bodily harm charges proceeded for two defendants (Ampadu and Paniccia) but were dismissed for the other two (Clare and Zenczuk).

The court found insufficient evidence for a common intention to attack all pedestrians, requiring individual assessment of party liability.

The defendants, jointly charged with manslaughter and assault, brought a motion seeking further disclosure from the Crown.

The applications concerned two areas: notes taken by police officers during witness preparation meetings with the Crown, and materials the Crown intended to use to cross-examine a proposed defence expert witness (a toxicologist) on the issue of bias.

The Crown opposed both applications, arguing that the notes contained no new relevant information and were subject to litigation privilege, and that the expert's prior testimony transcript was a matter of public record and not part of the "fruits of the investigation." The court ruled that the Crown was obliged to disclose both the officers' notes, finding them relevant and not privileged, and the transcript of the expert's prior evidence, as it related to the expert's impartiality and the accused's constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

The court emphasized the Crown's role as a minister of justice, prioritizing the proper administration of justice over tactical litigation advantages.

The request for "will-say" statements from officers who did not take notes was denied, as it would amount to creating evidence rather than disclosing existing material.