S. Cowan

The accused, Anthony Bruzzese, was charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing Mr. M. twice in the abdomen.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of Mr. Karcz, an eyewitness, and Mr. M., the victim, despite their intoxication and memory gaps.

The defence argued for reasonable doubt due to the possibility of self-inflicted wounds and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the stabbing.

The court found Mr. Karcz's and Mr. M.'s testimonies credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies and the victim's recovered memories.

The court dismissed the self-inflicted wound theory and the significance of absent forensic evidence given the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally stabbed the victim with intent to kill.

The offender, a 74-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to touching his young granddaughter for a sexual purpose contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and imposed the recommended sentence.

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.

This ruling provides the judge's full reasons for citing defence counsel, Ms. Eliany, in contempt.

The contempt arose from Ms. Eliany's refusal to provide a requested memorandum outlining her position on a s. 276 application during a judicial pre-trial conference.

The court affirmed its authority under s. 625 of the Criminal Code to order such a memo, emphasizing the importance of meaningful participation in pre-trials to promote fair and expeditious hearings and efficient case management.

The judge found that Ms. Eliany's refusal to comply with the order constituted a failure to effectively participate in the pre-trial process.

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a highly intoxicated complainant who lacked the capacity to consent.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to five years, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered the predatory nature of the offence, the accused's concocted story to police, and mitigating factors including his youth, lack of criminal record, and good employment history.

The court sentenced the accused to 28 months' imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The accused, Soheyl Tahan, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant.

The complainant had no memory of the events due to severe intoxication, and the accused claimed memory loss.

The court found the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, specifically her inability to understand the identity of her sexual partner.

The court also found the accused's claims of memory loss and intoxication to be fabricated, indicating a guilty mind.

Tahan was found guilty.

The offender was convicted after trial of three counts each of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed impaired driving incident that caused a severe head-on collision and serious injuries to three victims.

The court considered extensive aggravating factors including a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit, prolonged dangerous driving on a busy highway, and devastating and permanent injuries to one victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, otherwise exemplary life, genuine remorse, and severe permanent injuries he himself sustained in the collision.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence in impaired driving offences, the court imposed concurrent custodial sentences.

Ancillary orders included probation conditions and a lengthy driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, possession of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred on June 12, 2014, when the accused, who had been drinking, became involved in a physical altercation with a long-standing acquaintance.

The accused has an extensive criminal history spanning approximately 11 years in custody, with a pattern of violent offences and threatening behaviour dating back to 1992.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with credit for 164 days of pre-sentence custody (grossed up to 246 days at a 1.5:1 ratio), followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibition, substance abuse restrictions, and mandatory counselling.

During a jury trial for sexual assault, the accused brought a Corbett application seeking to exclude evidence of prior criminal convictions from cross-examination should the accused testify.

The defence sought to edit all adult convictions, while the Crown argued that the entire criminal record should remain available.

The court applied the established balancing test weighing probative value against prejudicial effect, considering factors such as similarity to the charged offence, relevance to credibility, and the number and timing of prior convictions.

Several convictions for assault, causing a disturbance, and harassing telephone calls were excluded due to similarity to the charged offence or lack of relevance to credibility.

Convictions for theft and multiple breaches of court orders were permitted as they bore directly on credibility and respect for the law.

Following sentencing for multiple sexual offences, the court initially imposed an incorrect Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order of 20 years.

Because the offender had been convicted of more than one designated offence, the Criminal Code required a mandatory lifetime SOIRA order.

The Crown brought an application to correct the error after sentencing.

The court held that although s. 490.012(4) of the Criminal Code did not apply, the court possessed inherent jurisdiction to correct a patent error relating to a statutorily mandated ancillary order.

The court issued a fresh lifetime SOIRA order and awarded the offender $200 in costs for compelled additional court attendances caused by the prosecutorial and judicial error.