Seth Weinstein

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving and driving while prohibited.

He had an extensive criminal record, including ten prior convictions for driving while prohibited and two for impaired driving.

At the time of the offence, he was bound by a lifetime driving prohibition and provided a false name to police.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting the defence's argument that the offender's mental health and addiction issues significantly mitigated his moral blameworthiness.

The offender was sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The accused, a dermatologist, was charged with sexual assault in relation to five patients who alleged he intentionally touched them in a sexual manner during medical examinations.

The Crown brought a similar fact application to admit the evidence of each complainant across all counts, which the court allowed.

However, applying the W.(D.) framework and assessing the circumstantial evidence, the court found the complainants' evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies and the possibility of tainting from media reports.

The court concluded there was a reasonable possibility that the physical contact was inadvertent and incidental to the close-proximity medical examinations.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to uttering unprovoked, hate-motivated threats against an Asian couple in a public setting.

The court considered the significant impact on the victims and the broader Asian community, as well as the offender's extensive criminal record for violent offences.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a 6-month custodial sentence followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following the execution of a search warrant at a condominium unit where he was present.

The Crown's case for possession of items found in the main bedroom relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused's passport and clothing.

The court found that while the evidence created a strong suspicion, it did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the items, as other individuals had access to the unit and alternative reasonable inferences were available.

The accused was acquitted on all remaining counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing a firearm while prohibited.

He was a repeat offender subject to a weapons prohibition at the time of the offence.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the loaded and concealed nature of the firearm, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, Gladue factors, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions involving lockdowns and triple-bunking.

A total sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment was imposed, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, Melvin Ogbomo, applied to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence, arguing the search warrant was facially and sub-facially invalid.

He alleged the affiant lacked subjective grounds, made misleading statements, and omitted material facts in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that while the affiant was careless and lacked training, his conduct was not deliberately misleading or subversive to the authorization process.

After amplifying the record to correct omissions, the court concluded there were still sufficient reasonable grounds to issue the warrant based on the shooting investigation and confidential source information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The young person was charged with animal cruelty offences and applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

Although the anticipated time to trial was below the presumptive 18-month ceiling, the defence argued the case took markedly longer than reasonably necessary due to the Crown's failure to provide essential disclosure in a timely manner.

The court found that the defence took sustained and meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, while the police and Crown demonstrated complacency regarding disclosure obligations.

Recognizing the enhanced need for timeliness in youth matters and the significant prejudice suffered by the young person, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable and stayed the charges.

This decision addresses a Charter application concerning a 95-minute delay in implementing Mr. Mohamed’s s. 10(b) right to counsel following his arrest for impaired driving and related firearms offences.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the delay, primarily caused by the arresting officer’s failure to arrange alternative transport to the station.

However, the evidence of the firearm, ammunition, and breath samples was admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter after a balancing of factors, given the minor impact on the accused’s rights and the strong public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court acquitted Mr. Mohamed on the firearms-related charges due to insufficient evidence linking him to the firearm but convicted him on impaired driving and over-80 charges based on reliable breathalyzer evidence.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand under the Criminal Code and careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

During his arrest, the police officer inadvertently recorded the accused's private telephone consultation with duty counsel, which the Crown conceded was a violation of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The court determined that admitting the evidence of the refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious breach of solicitor-client privilege, resulting in the exclusion of the refusal evidence and an acquittal on the criminal charge.

However, based on video evidence of aggressive driving and signs of impairment, the court found the accused guilty of the provincial offence of careless driving.

This decision from the Ontario Court of Justice addresses the issue of non-consensual sexual intercourse allegations between Kish Idoko and G.B. The court carefully analyzes the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, focusing on the disputed issue of penile penetration.

The judge rejects the accused’s claim that his admission of penetration was a joke and finds the complainant’s evidence credible despite some inconsistencies, emphasizing the importance of the complainant’s subjective experience and post-event demeanour.

The court ultimately finds the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexual assault.

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence of other sexual activity under section 276 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault prosecution.

The court allowed evidence that the complainant propositioned the Applicant and his girlfriend, C.E., for a threesome, finding it relevant to impeach the complainant’s credibility and establish a motive to fabricate.

The court further permitted limited questioning about the complainant’s sexual interest in C.E., concluding that this evidence had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice, particularly in a judge-alone trial.

The ruling clarifies the scope of permissible cross-examination regarding sexual interest as it relates to motive to fabricate allegations.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by a lower court after the respondents pleaded guilty to breaches of the Building Code Act.

The appeal concerned whether the sentencing judge erred by undercutting a joint submission on the fine amount.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge failed to follow the established framework for departing from joint submissions, specifically by not raising concerns or inviting further submissions, and by not providing cogent reasons for the departure.

The appeal was allowed, and the fine was substituted to the amount originally proposed in the joint submission.