Sean Terence Doherty

The Ontario Court of Justice found Frank Dimillo guilty of multiple firearm-related offences, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a firearm while prohibited, but acquitted him of aggravated assault.

The conviction rested primarily on the reliable and corroborated statement of his son, Blake Dimillo, who recounted the accused’s confession to shooting Morgan Richardson in the face.

Despite Blake’s in-court recantation, the judge preferred the original statement due to its precision, corroboration with physical evidence, and Blake’s motivation to tell the truth at the time.

The court carefully analyzed the circumstantial evidence, DNA findings, and the accused’s opportunity and motive, concluding the shooting was intentional and that the accused was the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Christopher Deamude, was charged with arson and possession of an incendiary device following a fire at a Dollarama store.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony from store employees and expert opinion from a fire investigator, arguing that the only reasonable inference was that the accused intentionally started the fire.

The defence contended that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that an alternative inference of an innocent shopper was reasonable.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's proximity to the fire's origin, his actions, and his statements, led to the sole reasonable inference of guilt.

The conviction for possession of an incendiary device was conditionally stayed.

Faizan Ali was found guilty of multiple weapons and drug trafficking offences following a motor vehicle collision.

He absconded prior to his sentencing hearing.

The court imposed a global sentence, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and loaded illegal handguns, and the fact that offences were committed while on a release order.

Mitigating factors, such as his youth and minimal prior record, were considered.

Sentences were imposed in absentia, with some counts stayed under the Kienapple principle and others made concurrent or consecutive to achieve a fit global sentence.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling on the admissibility of WhatsApp messages between the complainant and the respondent in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown argued that the respondent's silence in response to the complainant's direct allegation of non-consensual sexual activity in the messages constituted an adoptive admission.

The motion also addressed the admissibility of implied "other sexual activity" (paternity testing) within the messages, engaging s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the respondent's silence could reasonably be considered an adoptive admission by a jury.

The court also ruled that the evidence of paternity testing was admissible as critical background, with proper jury instructions to prevent twin myth reasoning.

The defence was permitted to adduce evidence of any prior denials by the respondent.

Cara Mortensen was found guilty of impaired driving and driving while prohibited, her second impaired driving offence within five months, which involved an accident and an attempt to flee the scene.

The Crown sought a 90-day sentence, while the defence proposed 30-45 days intermittently.

The court imposed a 75-day concurrent sentence, a 3-year driving prohibition, and 18 months' probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles and rejected the intermittent sentence request, citing the lack of appropriate accommodation (Temporary Absence Passes not constituting actual imprisonment) and the need to uphold Parliament's intent for custodial sentences in such cases.

The Crown applied under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness, S.B., on a prior inconsistent statement.

The accused opposed, arguing the statement's reliability was compromised due to the circumstances of its taking, including S.B.'s detention without Charter or Youth Criminal Justice Act rights being provided, and aggressive police questioning.

The court found S.B. was detained, not informed of her rights to counsel or to remain silent, and was a young person whose YCJA rights were breached.

The court also noted the unrecorded initial questioning and the coercive nature of the police interview.

Concluding that the statement's reliability was questionable and that granting the application would not serve the ends of justice, the court dismissed the Crown's application.

The applicant, Drew Mitchell, sought to vacate a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The application for bail review was based on alleged errors of law by the Justice of the Peace and the presentation of new evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error of law in the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's opposition to bail or in the finding of fact regarding compliance with previous conditions.

The new release plan, while offering some improvements, still had a significant gap in supervision and was not considered a material change in circumstances.

The application for bail review was dismissed.