Sarah Gray

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police arrested him and found a loaded handgun in his fanny pack.

The police acted on a stale, uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and briefly observed the accused riding an e-bike before blocking his path and arresting him.

The court found the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's rights, resulting in a finding of not guilty.

The Ontario Court of Justice declared a mistrial in a criminal proceeding against the accused, who had been found guilty of aggravated assault.

The mistrial was initiated by the court prior to sentencing due to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defence counsel had failed to call a qualified expert to support the accused's automatism defence, which was based on an epileptic seizure, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal requirement for expert evidence in such defences.

The court found that this error rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and constituted a miscarriage of justice, as the defence could not have succeeded without the required expert testimony.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, and breach of probation arising from an alleged incident in a park on October 27, 2017.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which contained numerous inconsistencies and contradictions regarding material facts including the accused's clothing, sobriety, and the nature of the alleged sexual conduct.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to her intoxication from marijuana, inconsistent statements, and tendency to testify as fact matters she was merely assuming, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant was found guilty of eight offences including sexual assault, assault, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and criminal harassment, all relating to the same complainant in a domestic context.

The defendant absconded from the jurisdiction after trial but before sentencing.

The court proceeded to sentence in absentia under section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding sufficient information about the defendant's personal circumstances from trial testimony to impose a fit sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 39 months (three years and three months) with emphasis on denunciation and deterrence, finding that rehabilitation could not play a role given the defendant's flight from justice.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a domestic violence incident: possession of a prohibited weapon (butterfly knife), uttering death threats, and assault.

The victim suffered significant physical injuries and psychological trauma during a violent attack in their shared residence.

The court balanced aggravating factors (severity of the attack, spousal abuse, significant victim impact) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, mental health and addiction treatment, stable employment, and family support) to impose a sentence of 15 days incarceration for assault, 4 months conditional sentence for uttering death threats, and 2 years probation for possession of a prohibited weapon.