Sandra Elizabeth Duffey

The 77-year-old accused stabbed and killed his apartment building manager and wounded the manager's wife, driven by a delusional belief that the manager was having an affair with the accused's wife and was mocking him.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Relying on the expert evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, the court found that the accused suffered from Delusional Disorder which rendered him incapable of rationally applying his general understanding of moral wrongfulness to his specific circumstances.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, and was remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The 77-year-old self-represented offender was found guilty of unlawful confinement after he followed a 14-year-old complainant off a public transit bus and physically held her against her will for approximately 51 seconds until a bystander intervened.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the victim's youth and the profound psychological impact of the offence against the offender's lack of a criminal record, his pro-social background, and his time spent on bail.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, including four months of house arrest, followed by two years of probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Criminal trial on multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with probation orders arising from three alleged incidents of intimate partner violence in 2023.

The Crown invited dismissal of charges relating to the third incident.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, finding that her combative demeanour under cross-examination was attributable to the prolonged proceedings, the manner of cross-examination, and her personal circumstances as a young Indigenous woman, rather than reflecting on her truthfulness.

The court found the complainant's core evidence on the remaining two incidents was compelling, internally consistent, and corroborated by CCTV footage, medical records, body-worn camera evidence, and photographic documentation of injuries.

The accused was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

He stabbed the victim four times in the back on February 9, 2024, at a makeshift shelter near Jane and Finch in Toronto.

The court found a causal link between the accused's schizophrenia and the offence, despite the Crown's submission that the accused's calm demeanor on video surveillance negated any such connection.

The court imposed a three-year sentence, accounting for the accused's mental illness, strong family support, good character when stable, difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, and rehabilitation prospects, while also recognizing the serious and unprovoked nature of the attack and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

This decision concerns an application by Martin Duah for a review of his detention under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the original justice erred in law, failed to provide sufficient reasons, and that there was a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the evidence, including new sureties and a revised release plan, but ultimately found the plan insufficient to address secondary ground concerns regarding public safety and supervision.

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered detained.

This decision addresses the issue of identity in a stabbing incident where the accused, Dwumo Amankwaah, was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown withdrew the attempted murder charge but sought conviction for aggravated assault as a lesser included offence.

The court carefully analyzed the reliability and credibility of the victim's identification, corroborated by surveillance footage and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation, staying the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

The judgment also clarifies the requirements for lesser included offences in attempted murder charges, particularly regarding aggravated assault.

In a criminal trial arising from a stabbing prosecution, the court determined the voluntariness of a videotaped police interview after the accused was arrested using force by officers who later participated in the questioning.

The defence argued that the arrest circumstances, the involvement of the same officers, and repeated assertions of a desire not to speak undermined voluntariness.

Applying the confessions rule and the contextual framework from Singh, the court held that the force used in the arrest was justified, non-gratuitous, and sufficiently disconnected from the interview.

The court found the accused understood his rights, was not oppressed or coerced, and repeatedly chose to engage with police despite intermittent refusals, rendering the statements admissible.

The accused, Brenda Andrew, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 against her former employer, Vertechs Design Inc., involving approximately $210,000.

The fraud was committed through unauthorized use of a corporate credit card and manipulation of the payroll system, spanning nearly three years.

Andrew made substantially full restitution.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered Andrew's extensive criminal record for similar dishonesty offences, the breach of trust, the sophistication and duration of the fraud, and the impact on the vulnerable small business.

Despite significant mitigation from the guilty plea and restitution, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the need for specific and general deterrence, sentencing Andrew to two years less a day in prison and imposing a lifetime prohibition on employment involving financial authority over others.

Matthew McLellan pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for unprovoked knife attacks on two homeless individuals.

The court considered aggravating factors including victim vulnerability, bias against homeless persons, and the violent, impulsive nature of the attacks.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, concluding that a custodial sentence was required over a conditional sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 22 months of custody, with a six-month credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in an additional six months to serve, followed by two years of probation.

Omari Rodney was convicted of possession of a loaded 9mm handgun, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

He absconded after conviction but before sentencing.

The court proceeded with sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the nature of the firearm, its defaced serial number, the combination of gun and drugs, the accused's prior weapons and violence history, and the public safety risk.

Mitigating factors included pre-sentence custody conditions and family support, though his rehabilitative prospects were deemed minimal due to absconding and lack of insight.

The court applied the totality principle and sentenced Mr. Rodney to a net term of 5 years and 2 months in jail, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of cash and firearm.

The applicant, Brenda Andrew, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 43 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling from R. v. Jordan.

The court identified nine months of "defence delay" attributable to the applicant's repeated requests for time to retain counsel and to raise restitution funds for a failed resolution agreement.

This reduced the net delay for Jordan purposes to 34 months.

The Crown argued that the remaining delay beyond the ceiling was due to the COVID-19 pandemic backlog, an "exceptional circumstance." The court found that approximately ten months of the delay in setting the trial date was attributable to the pandemic backlog, bringing the net delay to 24 months, which is below the Jordan ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

Omari Rodney was charged with drug and firearm offences after fleeing police and discarding a loaded handgun.

The defence argued that his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated, seeking exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that Rodney was not psychologically detained before he fled and discarded the gun, and that his subsequent arrest for firearm possession was lawful.

The search incident to arrest was also deemed lawful.

Even if Charter violations occurred, the court determined the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the offences and the public interest in a trial on the merits.

Rodney was found guilty of all charges.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under section 119(1)(q) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access youth records pertaining to the complainant's outstanding criminal charges.

The court held that youth records relating to outstanding charges are disclosable to the defence to make full answer and defence, as the access period begins when the record is created.

The application was granted on consent, allowing the matter to proceed to a third-party records application under the Criminal Code.

The court sentenced an offender for historic kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, choking, and threat offences committed against two vulnerable sex workers in 1986.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, the totality principle, and the Charter protection against double punishment, the court rejected the submission that a prior Colorado sentence barred or substantially reduced sentence in Canada, although it treated the U.S. sentence as a collateral consequence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including prolonged confinement, repeated sexual violence, use of weapons, the victims' vulnerability, offending while on bail, and a serious prior record, while giving limited mitigation for age and harsh remand conditions.

A 19-year global sentence was imposed, with 3303 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, SOIRA, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders.

This was a judge-alone criminal trial for sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that the accused sexually assaulted her after she had initially consented to some sexual activity but later withdrew consent due to intoxication and feeling pressured.

The court assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, and the accused's testimony unreliable due to numerous contradictions and evasiveness.

The court found that the complainant's consent was revoked following a shower, and subsequent sexual acts occurred under duress and without voluntary consent.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

Mark Holland was convicted of sexual assault from 2008.

The sentencing was significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 16 months imprisonment, while the defence sought "time served" or a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the constitutionality of s. 742.1(f)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which precludes conditional sentences for sexual assault prosecuted by indictment.

The judge found this section to infringe ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared it of no force or effect, following R. v. R.S. and R. v. Sharma.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the extraordinary delay, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence, to be served in the community, along with other standard orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition).

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, against two sex workers in 1986.

The accused fled to the United States shortly after being charged and was not returned to Canada until 2015.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit similar fact evidence across the counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his s. 7 rights were breached due to the loss of the original police files and evidence over the 35-year delay.

The court found a s. 7 breach regarding some lost evidence but declined to order a stay, noting the accused's own flight caused the delay.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts, staying one count of unlawful confinement under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, Jade Thelwel, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching court orders that prohibited her from communicating or posting online about two individuals, Luke Halstead and Andrei Korottchenko.

These breaches occurred after a sustained online campaign of vilification against the victims, which continued even after police investigations found no basis for her allegations and despite prior release conditions.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious impact on victims and the willful breach of court orders, alongside mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, engagement in counselling, and promising career.

The court ultimately granted a conditional discharge, imposing two years of probation with no contact orders and 50 hours of community service, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, and finding it in the public interest given the circumstances.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that late disclosure by the Crown prevented him from re-electing a judge-alone trial, thereby causing delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the primary reason for the trial not proceeding was the suspension of jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court also found that the applicant failed to prove that the late disclosure was the sole reason for not re-electing, noting other factors like the complainant's COVID-19 symptoms.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a prior detention order in a prosecution involving historic allegations of kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting adjournment of the trial, entitling the accused to a fresh bail hearing.

Although the court concluded the accused narrowly met the reverse onus on the primary ground, it held detention remained necessary on the tertiary ground given the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the horrific circumstances of the alleged offences, the accused's past flight, repeated delay attributable to the accused, and a weak release plan.

The bail review application was dismissed.