Sean F. Dunphy

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after stabbing his sleeping fiancé multiple times.

The accused admitted to the stabbing but raised a defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing he suffered a transient psychotic episode.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding the expert's opinion relied on facts inconsistent with the evidence, and concluded the attack was driven by jealousy rather than psychosis.

The court found the accused had the specific intent to kill and convicted him of attempted murder and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, possession of a loaded firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm following a bank robbery.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance and the testimony of a co-accused who had already pleaded guilty.

The court carefully assessed the co-accused's evidence as an unsavoury witness, finding it credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he was the individual who brandished and fired a handgun during the robbery.

The applicants, two of three co-accused in a large project prosecution involving a criminal organization, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was delayed by six weeks to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the third co-accused.

The court found that the net delay for one applicant fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

For the other applicant, the court found that the delay exceeded the ceiling but was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically case complexity and the strong public interest in holding a joint trial.

Both applications were dismissed.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a Stage 1 application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of a post-incident sexual relationship with the complainant.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to contradict the complainant's narrative of their subsequent relationship and to support his defence that the initial encounter was the start of a consensual, months-long relationship.

The court found the proposed evidence was capable of being admissible as it did not rely on prohibited twin-myth reasoning and was relevant to the complainant's credibility and the narrative of the relationship.

The application was granted, moving the matter to a Stage 2 hearing.

The Crown sought to call a key witness residing in Barbados to testify via videoconference at a firearms trial due to COVID-19 travel risks.

The accused opposed, arguing it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the accused failed to discharge the onus of showing that videoconference testimony would impair his ability to make full answer and defence or adequately test credibility.

The motion was granted, and the evidence was ordered to be received by videoconference.

The applicant, detained for nearly seven years under an immigration removal order, brought a habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his continued detention.

The court found that while the detention was of significant duration, it was reasonable and Charter-compliant given the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate in establishing his true identity and obtaining necessary travel documents.

The court emphasized that the applicant's lack of cooperation was the primary cause of the prolonged detention, and the administrative review process was fair.

The application was dismissed, but without prejudice to future reconsideration if progress towards obtaining travel documents stalled.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, applied for bail.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that while the secondary ground concerns were substantial, they could be adequately mitigated by a strict release plan involving two sureties, house arrest conditions, and random drug testing.

The court also concluded that detention was not necessary on the tertiary ground.

The application for release was granted.

The accused, Ricardo Davidson, sought release on a recognizance with house arrest terms after being in custody since July 30, 2019, facing multiple charges including sex trafficking, firearm possession, threatening, and assault.

This was his first bail hearing, and it was a reverse onus case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Davidson failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was not justified on secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The proposed release plan with a surety was deemed insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of re-offending or interfering with justice, given the gravity of the charges, the strength of the Crown's case, and the accused's criminal record.

The court also addressed and dismissed arguments regarding pre-trial delay due to a joint trial and the risk of COVID-19 in detention.

The applicant sought a bail review to vacate a prior detention order and be released under revised terms, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances.

The court found the pandemic constituted a material change, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, the application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was not necessary on both secondary and tertiary grounds, given his history of non-compliance, the unsuitability of proposed sureties, the strength of the Crown's case, and the gravity of the offences.

The court also found that the pandemic circumstances did not sufficiently mitigate the risks to public safety or confidence in the administration of justice.

Jorge Gomes was sentenced for two counts of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and causing bodily harm.

The court considered the severe and permanent injuries sustained by two victims, the offender's lack of prior criminal record, and the potential collateral immigration consequences as a permanent resident.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, particularly given the urban setting and the high blood alcohol concentration, the court imposed a sentence of three years in custody concurrently for each count, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

The court rejected a shorter sentence to avoid deportation, affirming that immigration consequences cannot justify an otherwise unfit sentence.

This decision addresses a blended voir dire in a sexual assault case, concerning the admissibility of the accused's statements to police and applications for a stay of proceedings due to pre-charge and post-charge delay.

The court found the accused was psychologically detained during his first statement, which was procured through deception and selective disclosure, leading to its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Applications for a stay of proceedings based on s. 7 and s. 11(b) Charter rights were dismissed, as the delay was deemed reasonable and no actual prejudice to a fair trial was established.

The 22-year-old offender was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, drug trafficking, and breaching a weapons prohibition order after his mother discovered drugs in his backpack and called the police.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of carrying a loaded handgun in public and breaching a prior order against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, genuine remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court imposed a global sentence of 1,335 days, reduced by 800 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant, Abdirahman Mohiadin, was convicted on six counts related to the possession of a loaded handgun in an automobile.

The court considered aggravating factors, including carrying a loaded handgun in public, and mitigating factors, such as the defendant's youth, first-time offender status, challenging background, and time spent under house arrest.

The Crown sought a sentence of 32-36 months, while the defence sought no more than 21 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 38 months imprisonment, concurrent sentences for lesser counts, pre-sentence custody credit, a weapons prohibition order, and a DNA sample order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the proliferation of gun violence.

The defendant, Ahmed Mohamed Marzouk, was charged with robbery contrary to s. 343 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that a robbery occurred as described by the complainant, Mr. Hinds.

The central issue was the identification of the perpetrator.

The defendant presented an alibi, claiming he was in class at York University, but failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence and was found to have lied on the witness stand.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis and, after discrediting the defendant's testimony, found strong corroborating evidence identifying the defendant as the robber, including phone contact, meeting location near his residence, physical description, and subsequent location of the stolen vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender, who was convicted of two counts of counselling murder and one count of obstruction of justice.

The offender brought a Charter challenge arguing the dangerous offender regime violated his rights under ss. 7 and 12, which the court dismissed.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to an intractable pattern of severe domestic violence and a high risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that neither a conventional sentence nor a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter of narcotics and a loaded firearm found after his mother opened his backpack in his bedroom while police were present.

The court held the mother was not acting as an agent of the state, but in her parental capacity after independently deciding to search the bag and asking police to attend a family dispute.

The court further held the police were lawfully present in the home and bedroom doorway by invitation, that the accused was not actually or psychologically detained before the bag was opened, and that a 12-minute delay in giving s. 10(b) rights was justified by officer safety concerns following discovery of a loaded handgun.

The exclusion application was dismissed and the evidence was admitted at trial.

The offender was convicted by a jury of pointing a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he pointed a BB gun at the victim.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the pointing a firearm charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences, the court sentenced the offender to 9 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions and pre-sentence custody credit.

The offender, a transgender refugee claimant from Guatemala, was convicted of arson causing damage to property after setting a fire in her Toronto Community Housing apartment.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of six months less a day to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court held that while collateral immigration consequences must be considered, they cannot artificially skew a sentence below the appropriate range.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence (satisfied by pre-sentence custody), two years of probation, and a restitution order of $15,809.11.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief endangering life following a fire on the stovetop of her rental apartment.

The court found that the physical evidence, including fuel deliberately placed under a burner, proved the fire was intentionally set.

The accused was found guilty of arson and the included offence of mischief to property, but acquitted of mischief endangering life as the Crown failed to prove the small, contained fire posed an actual danger to human life.

The appellant corporation claimed a tax refund resulting from carrying back non-capital losses to a previous taxation year.

After a successful objection to a reassessment, the appellant received the refund but was denied the enhanced rate of interest under s. 82(5) of the Corporations Tax Act.

The appellant brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether 'tax payable' under s. 82(5) must take into account a deduction from a loss carried back.

The court answered the question in the negative, finding that the specific deeming provision in s. 79(7) applies to the calculation of interest under s. 82(5), meaning tax payable is calculated without regard to subsequent year tax losses.

The appeal was effectively dismissed in favour of the respondent Crown.