Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The court sentenced Marlon Ramon-Vasquez for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the offender’s background, the impact of fentanyl on the community, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and significant rehabilitative steps, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The court sentenced S.F. for mischief to computer data and failing to comply with a recognizance, both relating to his former partner R.J. The court found S.F. changed R.J.'s passwords to control her and maintained contact with her in breach of a court order.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for the mischief to data offence and an absolute discharge for the breach, citing S.F.'s lack of criminal record, addiction recovery, and the limited harm caused.

The decision reviews sentencing ranges and factors for mischief to data, and the appropriateness of a discharge in domestic contexts.

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.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The decision concerns the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in a prosecution for firearms and drug offences.

The accused, Hussein Al Hayawi, was stopped by police and found in possession of drugs and firearms.

The court considered whether the accused had knowledge and control over the firearms, ammunition, and cannabis found in the trunk of the vehicle, and whether the cannabis was possessed for the purpose of selling.

The court found the accused guilty on all remaining counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence established knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a placeholder entry for a criminal case where the full reasons for judgment are not yet available.

The case involves R. v. Hawker, heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The accused, Justin Cassie-Berube, was charged with six counts relating to the death of a five-year-old girl, including failing to provide necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The judgment detailed the child's deteriorating health due to a bladder rupture and other injuries, and the accused's conscious decision to withhold medical attention due to fear of legal jeopardy from the child's visible bruises.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person, directly contributing to the child's death.

The accused was charged with second degree murder following the death of his friend, who was found beaten to death in his rented room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of the accused's ex-wife, who testified that the accused confessed to the killing during a drunken phone call.

The court accepted the ex-wife's testimony, finding it corroborated by cell phone records and non-public details of the crime scene.

Despite evidence of the accused's intoxication, the court found he possessed the requisite mens rea for murder given the brutality of the assault and his subsequent actions to conceal the crime.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence and a subsequent strip search.

She argued the search warrant was based on inadequate information from a confidential informant.

The court found the warrant was validly issued based on the totality of the information, including surveillance and database checks.

The court also found reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and strip search, and concluded that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The Crown and defence attended a case conference to determine whether the defendant's sentencing hearing should proceed remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant objected to a remote hearing and requested an in-person hearing.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed by videoconference pursuant to the newly enacted provisions of the Criminal Code, finding that a remote hearing would be fair, public, and appropriate given public health concerns.

The 19-year-old offender, who was 16 at the time of the offences, was convicted of multiple counts of robbery with a firearm and unlawful confinement relating to a string of convenience store robberies.

The Crown sought an adult sentence of eight years.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the offender's complex trauma, impulsivity, and history in the child welfare system.

The court imposed the maximum youth sentence of three years, comprising two years in closed custody and one year of community supervision, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant, on trial for manslaughter and assault charges, had his bail revoked when his father withdrew as surety.

A bail hearing was held to determine new release conditions.

The court found the Crown established a safety risk and likelihood of re-offence, necessitating a surety release.

The defendant proposed his mother as surety.

The court ultimately released the defendant on a $25,000 recognizance with his mother as surety, imposing house arrest and other conditions, but removing the electronic monitoring ankle bracelet.

The electronic monitoring condition was deemed constitutionally non-compliant due to its imposition without an opportunity to be heard, its unaffordable cost, and the significant emotional toll it placed on the family.

The moving party, a federal inmate serving a life sentence, brought an emergency motion for an injunction to prevent his transfer from an Ontario institution to an Alberta institution pending his habeas corpus application.

The moving party argued the transfer violated his right to counsel and would disrupt his scheduled hip surgery and family support in Ontario.

The court applied the three-part test for an injunction and found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The injunction was granted, ordering the moving party's return to Ontario pending the outcome of the habeas corpus application.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud, using a forged document, and obtaining credit under false pretences, defrauding four vulnerable individuals and Ontario Works of over $66,000 to fuel a prescription drug addiction.

The Crown sought 18 months of true incarceration, while the defence sought a 24-month conditional sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the devastating impact on the victims, against mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and successful rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence, followed by three years of probation, and issued a standalone restitution order for the full amount.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine after a secondary inspection at the airport, brought an application for third party records seeking CBSA training materials on racial profiling.

She alleged that her referral to secondary inspection was based on racial profiling because she is Black and was travelling from Jamaica.

The court applied the O'Connor test and found that the applicant failed to establish that the requested records were likely to be relevant.

The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of racial profiling, as travelling from a drug source country was only one of several objective indicators used by the CBSA officer.

The application was dismissed.

Ertug Direkoglu pleaded guilty to multiple counts of commercial drug trafficking.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, sentencing Direkoglu to a global term of eight years in jail, less three years pre-trial custody credit, leaving five years to be served concurrently to an existing sentence.

Aggravating factors included a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1993, indicating prior involvement in the drug trade.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas, which demonstrated remorse and saved significant court time, and the availability of family support upon release.

The sentence also included a lifetime s. 109 weapons prohibition order, a DNA order on specific drug counts, and a $200 victim surcharge.

During a criminal trial for procuring a person to become a prostitute and exercising control or influence over a person engaged in prostitution, the accused brought an application for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown’s case.

The court applied the test of whether there was any admissible evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could convict if the evidence were believed.

The evidence included testimony that the accused encouraged the complainant to work as a stripper, instructed her in lap dancing, advised her regarding sexual services for payment, transported her, controlled the proceeds of her earnings, and directed aspects of her work.

The court held that lap dancing involving sexual contact for payment could constitute prostitution and that the evidence could support findings of procuring and exercising direction or influence for the purpose of gain.

The application for directed verdicts was dismissed.

The applicant sought relief from a forfeiture order under s. 20(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in relation to residential property found to have been used as offence-related property in a marijuana trafficking investigation.

The court held that the applicable standard of proof was the civil balance of probabilities and applied the statutory criteria requiring a true and valid interest, apparent innocence of complicity, and proof of all reasonable care.

The court found the applicant had not established a true and valid interest because the evidence overwhelmingly supported nominee ownership for her father, and her credibility was significantly undermined by false mortgage and tax-related representations.

Although the court was not prepared to find likely complicity on the record, it concluded the applicant exercised no reasonable care in screening or supervising tenants.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code on the basis of potential racial bias and pretrial publicity.

The defence proposed multiple-choice versions of the traditional Parks question and an additional question regarding stereotypes about Black men.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on challenges for cause, including the requirement to demonstrate a realistic potential for juror partiality.

The court declined to permit the multiple-choice format and rejected the stereotype question due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

Instead, the court approved modified questions addressing racial bias and exposure to publicity, requiring jurors to answer in their own words.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and multiple counts of sexual exploitation arising from conduct toward his teenage daughter.

The court assessed credibility under the framework in R. v. W. (D.) and considered whether touching and related conduct occurred for a sexual purpose within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established that the accused measured the complainant’s breasts and body, conducted a breast examination, purchased sexual devices for her, repeatedly encouraged her to use them, and briefly touched her vaginal area with a vibrator while demonstrating its use.

The court concluded that these acts occurred within a relationship of trust and authority and constituted sexual exploitation and sexual assault.

The accused was acquitted of sexual interference because the Crown failed to prove the complainant was under 14 at the time of the touching.