Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The offender pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a computer, mischief to data, and failing to comply with a release order after hacking and defacing the Texas GOP website and distributing 180 GB of stolen data.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of a sophisticated, large-scale cyber attack targeting a political organization against mitigating factors including the offender's lack of a prior record, guilty pleas, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 18 months was imposed, reduced to 175 days to serve after credit for pre-trial custody.

The offender was convicted of possessing over two kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offence occurred nine days after his release on statutory release for prior robbery convictions.

The fentanyl he possessed caused a near-fatal overdose of an acquaintance in his apartment.

The Crown sought a 20-year sentence and delayed parole eligibility, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 16 years in custody, less 1,915 days of pre-sentence credit, finding the large quantity of fentanyl, the near-fatal overdose, and his status as a recent parolee to be significant aggravating factors.

The Crown's request for delayed parole eligibility was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to occupying a motor vehicle with a loaded handgun, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

The court considered the defendant's significant criminal record, including a prior manslaughter conviction, alongside mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and systemic disadvantage stemming from his childhood in a war-torn country.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The accused were arrested following a drug trafficking investigation where a youth sold fentanyl to an undercover officer.

Orgen Dorjee was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with a large quantity of drugs, while Tenzin Dorjee was in the back seat next to a loaded firearm.

The Crown alleged they were engaged in a joint drug trafficking enterprise and were in constructive possession of each other's illicit items.

The court found Tenzin Dorjee guilty of possessing the loaded firearm, as it was in plain view and he fled from police.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove a joint enterprise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Orgen Dorjee was acquitted of the firearm charges, and Tenzin Dorjee was acquitted of the drug charges.

The defendant, previously convicted of defrauding the government of over $1.6 million in taxes and sentenced to custody and an $833,238 fine, applied for a 10-year extension to pay the balance of the fine.

The court found that the defendant had only paid a fraction of the fine despite earning a significant income and accumulating consumer debt.

Applying the inference from Topp, the court concluded the defendant still possessed hidden funds and had not provided a reasonable excuse for failing to pay.

The application was dismissed, and the defendant was found in default, permitting the Crown to pursue civil enforcement.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against an 11-year-old complainant.

The sole ground of appeal was ineffective assistance of trial counsel, alleging that counsel focused excessively on the complainant's gender identification, failed to cross-examine on lack of opportunity, failed to bring a section 276 application, and failed to obtain an updated psychological report.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's tactical decisions were reasonable and professional, and that the appellant failed to establish incompetence or a miscarriage of justice.

The offender was convicted of robbery with a firearm and being in a vehicle knowing it contained a firearm after robbing victims during an online marketplace transaction.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 to 8 years, while the offender sought the mandatory minimum of 5 years.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the offender's positive rehabilitative prospects, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism and racial profiling he experienced in his youth.

Applying the principle of restraint, the court found that a sentence above the mandatory minimum was not required to satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and sentenced the offender to 5 years imprisonment minus pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after stabbing a man during an altercation on a TTC streetcar.

The offender, who was subject to a peace bond prohibiting weapons, acted in self-defence but used excessive force.

The court considered the offender's 11 months of pre-sentence custody, his lack of a prior criminal record, and his career plans.

Finding that a discharge would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months of probation.

The Applicant brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a multi-unit dwelling.

The court found the search warrant invalid because police failed to disclose obvious indicia that the residence contained multiple units, rendering the warrant overbroad.

The subsequent search, detention, and arrest were therefore illegal, violating ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, police violated the Applicant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel for two hours without justification and eliciting inculpatory actions (opening a safe) before he could consult a lawyer.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded the serious and cumulative Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the seized drugs and the Applicant's statements under s. 24(2).

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing the victim during a street confrontation.

The victim had previously broken into the accused's home and stolen electronics.

Both men were armed with knives and under the influence of fentanyl during the altercation.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 years less a day.

The court determined the fit sentence to be 7 years.

After applying a Summers credit of 5.1 years for pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit of 0.9 years for harsh pre-trial custody conditions including lockdowns and triple bunking, the net sentence imposed was 365 days in custody followed by 3 years of probation.

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that police interrupted his consultation with duty counsel and thereby breached s. 10(b) of the Charter.

He submitted that the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour from a short video clip and failed to give adequate weight to his statement that he was 'not sure' when asked when the call had ended.

The appeal court held that the impugned findings were factual and credibility-based determinations entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including the video and the officer’s testimony, the court found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

During the jury trial, the court ruled on several preliminary applications, including denying the accused's request to sit at counsel table and dismissing the Crown's application to adduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence moved for a directed verdict.

The court found that the Crown's case rested entirely on a single police officer's purported identification of the accused as the person who threw a bag of drugs during a chaotic takedown seven years prior.

The court concluded that the officer's identification was actually an inference based on the accused's proximity to the arrest, not an observation, and that there was no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The motion for a directed verdict was granted and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and uttering threats, arising from an incident where the complainant was held in an apartment for several hours.

The accused admitted to pouring boiling water on the complainant, constituting aggravated assault, but denied the other charges.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and internally inconsistent.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable regarding the confinement, beatings, head shaving, burning with a lighter, and threats, but found her evidence regarding the sexual assault too inconsistent to support a conviction.

The accused was found guilty of all charges except sexual assault.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen motor vehicle, flight from police, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

After fleeing a traffic stop in a stolen vehicle and crashing, the offender fled on foot and a loaded handgun was found nearby.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought a sentence of time served (749 days credited as 1124 days).

The court accepted the defence position, imposing a sentence of time served plus one day, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

Summary conviction appeal from a conviction entered after a guilty plea to operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The appellant argued that the trial judge wrongly refused a day-of-trial adjournment to retain counsel and that the plea was uninformed because he did not understand the immigration consequences of conviction.

The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the adjournment, given the age of the charges, the absence of diligence in retaining counsel, and the readiness of the witnesses and Crown to proceed.

The court further held that the appellant was sufficiently aware that a criminal conviction could carry serious immigration consequences, and in any event failed to establish credible subjective prejudice showing a reasonable possibility that he would have proceeded differently.

Following jury convictions for multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences, the court sentenced the offender for possessing three loaded prohibited handguns, overcapacity magazines, ammunition, and fentanyl, cocaine, and oxycodone.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearms and fentanyl trafficking offences, while also materially reducing moral culpability in light of the offender's anti-Black racism context, childhood instability, community violence exposure, and the IRCA evidence.

Applying concurrency within offence categories, consecutive treatment between firearms and drug categories, and the totality principle, the court reduced the global sentence from 14 years to 12 years.

After Summers credit for pre-trial custody and Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, the remaining sentence was nine years and five months, together with lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and forfeiture orders.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash warrants authorizing forensic searches of his cellphone following charges arising from a political protest that disrupted an off-campus university event.

The court held that the ITO did not establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the phone would contain evidence of the investigated offences, as the asserted conspiracy rationale was conclusory and the limited evidence of cellphone use was too remote and contextually weak.

The court further held that the warrant lacked sufficient particularity because it authorized analysis 'based upon' the offences, listed sweeping data categories, and imposed no temporal limits.

Both search warrants were quashed, with leave to the respondent to seek a stay.

Following jury convictions for sexual assault and two counts of sexual assault with a weapon arising from repeated sexual abuse of an intimate partner over a lengthy cohabiting relationship, the court determined the sentencing facts consistent with the jury verdicts.

The court found two incidents of non-consensual anal sex, five occasions where rope remained on the complainant after consent was withdrawn, and two non-consensual anal plug incidents, but declined to find controlling and abusive behaviour proved beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate aggravating factor.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the statutory aggravation for abuse of an intimate partner, the court imposed 6 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.

The court also made a lifetime SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a custodial no-contact order.

Media applicants sought termination or variation of a sealing order over an Information to Obtain connected to a homicide and trans-national drug trafficking investigation.

Applying the open court principle and the Dagenais/Mentuck framework as restated in Sherman Estate, the court held that the Crown bore the burden of justifying the continued sealing after execution of the warrant.

The Crown's concerns about witness safety and investigative prejudice were found too generalized and insufficiently supported in the circumstances, particularly given the arrests already made and the age and partial public availability of the information.

The application was granted and the sealing order was terminated.

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.