Sam Scratch

The accused, a first-time offender and single mother, acted as a surety for her brother who faced serious firearms charges.

Despite assuring the court she would strictly supervise him, she failed to enforce his bail conditions, turned a blind eye to his breaches, and actively assisted him in escaping police by providing scissors to cut off his GPS ankle monitor.

She pleaded guilty to obstructing justice.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, while the defence proposed a 3-6 month conditional sentence.

The sentencing judge held that the accused's actions struck at the heart of the bail system, making denunciation and deterrence paramount.

After considering the accused's background, rehabilitative prospects, and the collateral consequences on her child, the court determined that a conditional sentence would not adequately denounce the conduct.

A 12-month custodial sentence was imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice by providing scissors to her brother to cut off his GPS ankle monitor.

At a Gardiner hearing to determine disputed aggravating facts for sentencing, the Crown alleged the accused knew of her brother's repeated bail breaches, offered to provide a false alibi, and failed to enforce the residency requirement of his bail.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to enforce the residency requirement by maintaining a separate residence, but failed to prove she had knowledge of all his breaches or offered to provide a false alibi.

The offender, who was 18 years old at the time of the offences, was sentenced for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit forcible confinement, unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and trafficking in a controlled substance.

The court considered the offender's cognitive impairments, background of poverty, and harsh presentence custody conditions as mitigating factors against the serious aggravating factors of the offences, which included a home invasion and the use of a firearm.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, which was reduced to 8 years and 3 months after applying credit for presentence custody.

The accused, Salman Jogiyat, was acquitted of first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to contempt of court for refusing to disclose the identities of other individuals involved in the circumstances surrounding the murder during his trial testimony, despite being ordered to do so by the court.

The court considered the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation, as well as the accused's personal circumstances, including a Mild Intellectual Disability and a significant criminal record.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, while the defence suggested 24 to 30 months.

The court imposed a three-year term of penitentiary imprisonment, finding it proportionate and necessary for deterrence and denunciation, aligning with the established sentencing range for such contempt.

Sufyan Jogiyat pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence proposed 4 years.

The court sentenced Mr. Jogiyat to 4 years and 4 months for aggravated assault and 18 months consecutive for drug trafficking, resulting in a global sentence of 5 years and 10 months.

The judge also ruled on the admissibility of aggravating evidence regarding prior trafficking, excluding it as it was not sufficiently material and risked unduly prolonging the hearing.

The decision considered the principles of sentencing, aggravating factors (home invasion, commercial drug operation), and mitigating factors (guilty pleas, remorse, youth, first offender status, pre-sentence custody conditions).

The applicants brought a pretrial motion challenging a search warrant and a Part VI wiretap authorization.

The court found that the applicant had standing to challenge the search warrant for a short-term rental unit, as he could rely on the affiant's theory in the Information to Obtain (ITO) which alleged he rented the unit.

The court also held that the applicants do not require leave to cross-examine officers regarding the 'resort-to' provision of the wiretap authorization, as the Crown bears the burden of establishing lawful interception when a Charter challenge is raised.

The applicant, Shaun Blackman, charged with threatening death and intimidating a justice participant, brought a pre-trial application under sections 7 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged that police failed to seize and preserve crucial evidence related to threatening Instagram posts, thereby impairing his right to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police's actions did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that no Charter violation occurred, as the relevant evidence was preserved in substance and the defence retained the ability to challenge it at trial.

The defendants were convicted of recklessly discharging a restricted firearm, and one defendant was additionally convicted of drug trafficking and other firearm offences.

The court determined that the five-year mandatory minimum penalty applied to the discharge offence.

After considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the principle of totality, the court sentenced Mr. Jama to five years (reduced to four years, three months, and three weeks after credit) and Mr. Farah to a total of six years and 10.5 months (reduced to two years less a day after credit, plus probation).

The offenders were convicted of firearms trafficking and related offences committed in association with a criminal organization that imported firearms from the United States to Toronto.

The Crown sought sentences of 9 and 12 years, while the defence sought 4 and 6-8 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the severe risk firearms pose to the community, while also considering the offenders' lack of prior records and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the first offender to 6 years and the second offender to 9 years in custody, with credit given for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The accused, Bill Allison and Kamar Cunningham, were charged with multiple offences related to firearms trafficking and participation in a criminal organization following a police investigation dubbed 'Project Patton'.

The Crown alleged that the accused were involved in importing firearms from the United States and distributing them in Toronto.

The court relied heavily on intercepted communications using coded language.

Mr. Allison testified, claiming he only received firearms for personal use, but his evidence was rejected.

Mr. Allison was found guilty of firearms trafficking, offering to transfer a firearm, and conspiracy.

Mr. Cunningham was found guilty of firearms trafficking, participating in a criminal organization, and possession for the purpose of transferring, but was acquitted of conspiracy due to reasonable doubt about his membership.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and related allegations in June 2017, with trial scheduled for March 2019, resulting in a gross delay of 21.5 months.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging the right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

After deducting 1.5 months of defence delay, the net delay was 19.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that systemic disclosure failures, particularly the late disclosure of a key witness's statement on the morning of trial, could not be justified as exceptional circumstances.

The charges were stayed.

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with unlawful confinement and assault after cancelling a trip and rerouting a passenger to Scarborough without her consent.

The Crown alleged the defendant confined the complainant and held her hand against her will.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct was reprehensible, the complainant's evidence regarding what she communicated to the defendant was unreliable and ambiguous, and surveillance video from the LCBO suggested the defendant was not acting as someone knowingly confining a person.

The court concluded there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown had established the necessary mens rea, including wilful blindness.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, initially had no memory of the events but later claimed to remember non-consensual anal penetration.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and denied any anal penetration, stating that the encounter ended when the bed tipped and the complainant hit her head.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by forensic evidence and witness testimony.

The court raised serious concerns about the reliability of the complainant's recovered memories, suggesting they may have been tainted by suggestions from a sexual assault nurse and police.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown applied under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code for publication bans to protect the identities of three witnesses (J.D., M.S., B.S.) in a murder re-trial.

The Crown argued that non-publication was necessary to prevent harm to the witnesses' reputations and rehabilitation efforts, and to encourage participation in the justice system.

The respondents opposed, asserting the paramountcy of the open court principle and the lack of an adequate evidentiary record.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's unsworn statements were insufficient to displace the presumption of openness, and that purely personal interests like emotional distress or embarrassment do not satisfy the necessity test for a publication ban.

The accused, Richard Sheridan and Chad Noureddine, facing a retrial for second-degree murder, applied for severance from each other.

Noureddine argued prejudice from Sheridan's statement, potential jury misuse, and impact on his duress defence.

Sheridan argued prejudice from edits to his statement and potential prejudicial evidence from Noureddine's duress defence.

The court dismissed both applications, affirming the presumption of joint trials for co-accused in joint criminal ventures.

The court found that limiting instructions and prior edits to Sheridan's statement sufficiently mitigated prejudice, and rejected the argument that juries would be unable to follow complex instructions or that hypothetical evidence warranted severance.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his severely disabled brother, whom he had removed from a care facility to misappropriate his disability cheques.

The victim died from starvation and neglect after eight years of abuse.

The trial judge imposed a 20-year sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was beyond the established range and that the trial judge improperly treated a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the horrific aggravating circumstances justified a sentence outside the usual range.

However, the appeal was allowed solely to apply enhanced pre-sentence custody credit under Summers, reducing the net sentence to 14 years and 11 months.

The appellants were acquitted of first degree murder and convicted of second degree murder.

They appealed their convictions on the basis that the trial judge erred during jury selection by unilaterally ordering the use of static triers for challenges for cause, despite the appellants' requests for rotating triers and the absence of an application under s. 640(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that the improper use of static triers deprived the appellants of their statutory right to rotating triers, rendering the court improperly constituted to try them.

The curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iv) could not apply.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in failing to answer a jury question regarding closing arguments.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered for second degree murder.

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon (knife), and theft under $5,000 arising from a robbery on June 18, 2014.

The Crown conceded that the weapon had not been established and proceeded only on simple assault.

The central issue was the identification of the defendant as the alleged lookout in the robbery.

The complainant identified the defendant based on recognition from the community, a yearbook photo identification, and the name "Kadir" mentioned during the incident.

The court found significant shortcomings in the identification evidence, including poor lighting conditions, lack of proper police photo lineup procedures, and inconsistencies in the complainant's description.

The defendant was acquitted due to the Crown's failure to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

On a mid-trial application for severance following an adjournment caused by co-accused counsel's conflict, the court considered whether delay to the moving accused justified separate trials.

Applying the governing severance principles under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the balancing approach in Last, the court held that the strong public interest in a joint trial remained predominant.

The charges arose from the same hotel-room seizure, the possession issues overlapped substantially, and severance risked inconsistent verdicts and impaired truth-seeking.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to any future s. 11(b) Charter argument.