Sam Scratch

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 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 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 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.

The accused, a recently turned eighteen-year-old student, pleaded guilty to threatening to shoot up his school and threatening damage to property.

The Crown sought detention pending a psychiatric assessment and sentencing, citing concerns about potential access to firearms and possible mental illness.

The court granted bail with conditions, finding that detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds of the Criminal Code.

The decision addresses systemic issues in the bail system, including risk-aversion among decision-makers and the divergence between statutory bail provisions and actual bail court practices.

The accused applied under ss. 462.34(4) and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of restrained funds derived from the sale of a matrimonial home in order to pay legal expenses.

The court considered whether the applicant established that he had no other assets or means available to meet reasonable legal expenses and that no other person appeared lawfully entitled to the funds.

The court found the applicant’s financial disclosure incomplete and unreliable, noting unexplained assets and prior access to substantial funds.

Evidence also supported the claim of an alleged fraud victim who appeared to have a lawful entitlement to the restrained property.

The statutory prerequisites for release were therefore not met.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to murder and commit aggravated assault, counselling to murder and commit aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon.

The charges arose from an overheard conversation where Abou Al-Rashta instructed Pirouzi to attack two individuals.

The court found insufficient evidence of a meeting of minds to support the conspiracy charges against both accused.

However, the court found Abou Al-Rashta guilty of counselling the offences, as he actively induced and encouraged Pirouzi.

Pirouzi was also found guilty of assault with a weapon for a separate incident involving a remote control.