Sandra Nishikawa

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, firearm offences, and drug trafficking following an unprovoked knife attack to collect a drug debt.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative potential and the mitigating impact of systemic anti-Black racism detailed in an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment.

The sentence was reduced by a 1.5:1 Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, a 6-month reduction for a Charter breach involving mistreatment by correctional officers, and a 1-year Duncan credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The remaining sentence to be served is 47 months and 28 days.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm after allegedly street racing with a co-worker.

The co-worker's vehicle struck a third party's vehicle at an intersection, killing the driver and severely injuring the co-worker's passenger.

The accused's vehicle did not strike the victim's vehicle.

The court found that the accused and the co-worker were racing at excessive speeds, which constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.

The accused's participation in the race was a significant contributing cause of the collision.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping a 14-year-old boy as leverage to extort the return of stolen cocaine.

The kidnapping was planned and premeditated, and the victim was bound and blindfolded for 36 hours.

The court considered the severe impact on the victim and his family as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and the impact of anti-Black racism on his life trajectory, as detailed in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 11.5 years, which was reduced to 9.5 years after applying Summers, Downes, and Duncan credits for pre-sentence custody, house arrest bail, and harsh jail conditions.

The accused, a physiotherapist, was tried on one count of sexual assault arising from allegations that he touched a child complainant's vagina during treatment sessions.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and the governing principles on assessing child-witness evidence, motive to fabricate, prior consistent statements, and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found a strong motive to fabricate at the time of disclosure and identified material inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts about when the touching began, how often it occurred, and the nature of the contact.

In the context of the evidence as a whole, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the severity of the victim's broken arm and the presence of a second assailant, rendering the verdict unreasonable.

He also appealed his six-month conditional sentence, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and failed to account for immigration consequences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, that the verdict was well-supported, and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the immigration consequences by granting lengthy adjournments prior to sentencing.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found the drugs in a concealed compartment of a vehicle he had abandoned following a shooting at a mall.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The court found that multiple other individuals had access to and used the vehicle, and there was no forensic evidence connecting the accused to the drugs.

The court concluded that it was reasonably possible someone else hid the drugs in the vehicle without the accused's knowledge, and therefore the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was convicted after trial by judge and jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused recruited and transported a vulnerable young woman living in a shelter, directing her to engage in sex work through online advertisements and hotel-based services.

The accused controlled the victim's earnings, imposed daily quotas, and restricted her access to food and money.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of five years, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, resulting in 41 months to be served.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives while considering the accused's age, limited criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant four times during a physical altercation at a homeless shelter.

The Crown alleged the defendant initiated the confrontation and used excessive force.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him unprovoked and he stabbed in response to being pinned to the ground and punched repeatedly in the head.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that while the defendant initiated the confrontation by following the complainant, once the physical fight began, the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him, acted with the subjective purpose of self-protection, and the use of force was reasonable in the circumstances given the defendant's inability to escape and the ongoing threat posed by the larger, stronger complainant.

The applicant was charged with aggravated assault, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging that correctional officers at Toronto South Detention Centre breached his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter by subjecting him to degrading strip search and forced toilet procedures.

The court found Charter breaches but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding alternative remedies adequate.

On the trial proper, the applicant was found guilty of all charges, including aggravated assault, based on DNA evidence linking his knife to the victim's blood and circumstantial evidence establishing his presence and motive.

Following a jury conviction for sexual interference of a 14-year-old complainant, the sentencing judge imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The offence involved digital penetration and attempted penile penetration of the victim by her uncle, who held a position of trust.

The Crown sought five to six years; the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen regarding substantial sentences for child sexual abuse, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the harm caused to the victim.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault of a child, the sentencing judge imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The offence involved attempted penetration of a ten-year-old child by an adult in a position of trust within the family home.

The Crown sought six years; the defence sought 18-24 months.

The court applied the principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in child sexual abuse cases, while also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, rehabilitative potential, and collateral consequences to his dependent children.

The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (Glock handgun), two counts of unlawful possession of overcapacity cartridge magazines, and breaches of a weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence and probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 months after accounting for Summers credit, Duncan consideration, Downes credit, and a three-month reduction for Charter breaches.

The sentencing considered the defendant's strong rehabilitative potential, experiences with systemic anti-Black racism, remorse, and family support, balanced against the serious nature of firearm offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court sentenced K.H. to four and a half years in the penitentiary for sexual interference, following a jury trial.

The decision details the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, the impact on the victim, and the application of sentencing principles, including the relevance of systemic and cultural factors.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of anti-Black racism, and the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen regarding substantial sentences for child sexual abuse.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The plaintiff, Huanyu Shi, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Junxu Chen, for defaulting on a cross-border currency exchange/loan agreement.

The court found that Mr. Chen received substantial funds from Mr. Shi and failed to repay them as agreed, rejecting Mr. Chen’s claims of repayment.

The court awarded Mr. Shi $2,308,309 in damages, declined to award punitive damages, and refused to impose a tracing order or constructive trust.

Substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

The court sentenced Evan Mitchell for multiple firearms and drug offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles such as totality, parity, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 55 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The decision finds Samir Abdelgadir guilty of kidnapping S.J., a 14-year-old abducted outside his home in Toronto.

The court details the planning and execution of the kidnapping, including the use of multiple vehicles, the roles of various associates, and the subsequent burning of the getaway vehicle.

The court analyzes the credibility of key witnesses, the circumstantial evidence, and the legal principles of party liability and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge concludes that Abdelgadir, while not the person who physically abducted S.J., knowingly participated as the driver of a support vehicle and was part of the coordinated plan.

The court considered charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a person under 16, and assault against E.V. involving two complainants, S.A. and K.A., who were sisters.

The court analyzed the admissibility and weight of similar fact evidence, the credibility and reliability of the complainants and the accused, and the requirements for conviction on each count.

E.V. was found guilty of sexual interference in relation to K.A. (the car incident), and not guilty on the remaining charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a conveyance and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mgs/100 mL.

The Crown conceded a s. 8 Charter breach because the arresting officer did not have an approved screening device (ASD) on scene when making the breath demand, as per R. v. Breault.

The trial judge found consequential s. 9 and 10(b) breaches but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, citing the officer's good faith error due to a change in law.

On appeal, the court re-evaluated the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, excising the ASD result as required by R. v. Zacharias, which led to findings of unlawful arrest, detention, and breath samples.

Despite these breaches, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to exclude the evidence, finding that the seriousness of the state conduct and impact on the appellant's rights were outweighed by society's interest in adjudication on the merits, particularly in impaired driving cases.

The appeal was dismissed.

This criminal trial involved a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from the defendant's vehicle following an arrest and detention related to a robbery.

The defendant argued that the initial arrest of a passenger and his own detention were unlawful, rendering the subsequent vehicle search and warrant invalid.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the passenger's arrest and the defendant's investigative detention, and that the warrantless search of the vehicle was a lawful search incident to arrest.

Consequently, the Charter application was dismissed.

The defendant was found guilty of multiple firearm and drug trafficking charges, but not guilty of trafficking fentanyl, instead being convicted of simple possession of fentanyl.

The defendant, G.W., was charged with one count of sexual assault stemming from an incident in October 1995.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

The complainant testified that the defendant pinned her against her vehicle and attempted to sexually assault her.

The defendant denied the allegations.

The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the details of the assault and the physical feasibility given her costume.

While rejecting the defendant's account, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the Crown's proof of sexual assault.

The defendant was found not guilty.