Sharon Jeethan

The court sentenced Shane Campbell following his guilty plea to three firearms offences arising from a gunfight in a Toronto residential neighbourhood.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, Campbell’s personal background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors considered.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight-and-one-half years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also recognizing Campbell’s remorse, family support, and the impact of systemic racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The accused, Stephan Parr and Amy Rose-Podnar, brought mid-trial applications to exclude certain evidence in their first-degree murder trial.

Ms. Rose-Podnar sought to exclude seven text messages exchanged with a co-accused, Kaveh Lozoomi-Gamroodi, after the murder.

Both accused jointly sought to exclude testimony regarding the timing and number of phone calls between themselves and Dennis Crupi, the owner of a vehicle linked to the murder scene, around the time Crupi was being interviewed by police.

The court granted both applications, finding that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, as its admission would invite impermissible speculation and inferences of bad character, potentially forcing the accused to testify to provide context.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services, contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Involvement spanned from September 2018 to March 2020, facilitating a family member's human trafficking activities by managing finances, booking hotel rooms, and transporting victims.

The court considered aggravating factors including the number of victims, profound impact, duration of the offence, and the enabling role, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, first-time offender status, and compliance with bail.

The court rejected the claim of believing prostitution was legal and the lack of remorse for victims.

A two-year less one-day conditional sentence was imposed, along with two years of probation and a DNA order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while allowing for community service given the lower moral culpability compared to the principal offender.

The offender, Miekel Allen, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm.

The court considered both aggravating factors, such as the nature of the loaded prohibited handgun and its accessibility, and significant mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, pre-trial custody, guilty plea, remorse, pro-social goals, strong family support, difficult childhood, and social context evidence.

The Crown sought a two-year penitentiary sentence, while the Defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month reformatory sentence, reduced to 11 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Sentencing of two offenders convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

Jason Wisdom, a mature recidivist, was convicted of possessing large quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine, as well as a loaded restricted firearm and breaching prohibition orders.

He was sentenced to a total of 17 years imprisonment.

Dae-Shawn Wisdom, a younger recidivist, was convicted of possessing fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and was sentenced to 7 years and 4 months consecutive to a sentence he was already serving.

The court applied the totality principle and Lord Coke's principle regarding subsequent convictions.

Nicholas Poku was convicted of possessing 1.347 kg of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years, citing Mr. Poku's first-time offender status and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, balancing the gravity of the offence (large quantity of heroin, sophisticated scheme) against Mr. Poku's personal circumstances (first-time offender, strong community support, no prior criminal record).

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding Mr. Poku's role more significant than a mere facilitator.

Ultimately, a penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed, along with mandatory ancillary orders, falling at the lower end of the range for similar offences due to mitigating personal factors.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a trial management conference in a criminal proceeding.

Key points included a discussion regarding the appointment of counsel for one accused, Stephen Richard Parr, who has a Legal Aid certificate but is seeking counsel on the LAO panel.

The court also directed the Crown to file its discreditable conduct application and ordered all counsel to file summaries of their intended pre-trial applications by March 29, 2024.

The judge expressed concern about the efficiency of virtual attendances and indicated a consideration for ordering future trial management conferences to be held in person.

The defendants applied to exclude evidence (a gun and their clothing) obtained following their detention and arrest, alleging breaches of their Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the initial investigative detention lawful, but identified breaches of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to promptly advise of the right to counsel upon detention and for subsequent delays in facilitating access to counsel at the police station.

However, the court found no s. 8 breach regarding the gun seizure, concluding the accused had no privacy expectation, had abandoned the gun, and the search was conducted with valid consent.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court weighed the moderate seriousness of the Charter breaches against their minimal impact on the accused's rights and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious armed robbery cases on their merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and all evidence was found admissible.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence for a young person, M.B., who was found guilty of numerous serious offences, including a targeted shooting and subsequent firearm and drug offences.

The court considered the two-part test under section 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act: whether the Crown rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and whether a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court found that M.B.'s actions, while serious, did not demonstrate adult maturity or sophistication, citing his background as a refugee, cognitive challenges, susceptibility to negative peer influence, and amateurish conduct during the offences.

The court also noted M.B.'s significant progress and rehabilitation while in custody.

Consequently, the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, and the application for an adult sentence was dismissed, with the court concluding that a maximum youth sentence could adequately hold M.B. accountable.

A young person was tried on charges arising from two separate incidents: a mass shooting at a Subway restaurant in Waterloo on April 19, 2019, where approximately 35 shots were fired into a crowded establishment, and a series of offences committed on May 16, 2019, including dangerous driving, fleeing police, and possession of a loaded firearm with serial number removed.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, particularly video surveillance footage, cell phone records, GPS data, and physical evidence recovered from the scene.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishing identity as one of the shooters and connecting him to the May 16 incident through a clear chain of evidence.

The applicant sought to exclude firearms found in his residence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, following a prior ruling that the search warrant violated his s. 8 rights due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court applied the Grant framework and found the police conduct was serious, as the ITO contained misleading and unsupported statements regarding the suspects' movements between residences.

Given the serious impact on the applicant's privacy interests in his home, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, despite the seriousness of the firearms offences.

The evidence was excluded and acquittals were entered.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences, brought a Section 8 Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence.

The police had obtained warrants for three residences based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on confidential informant information and police observations following a shooting.

The court reviewed the ITO under the Garofoli framework and found that the evidence connecting the applicant's specific residence to the shooting was insufficient and largely based on conclusory statements by the affiant.

The court concluded that the warrant could not have validly issued for that address, resulting in a breach of Section 8 of the Charter, with the Section 24(2) analysis to follow.

During a first-degree murder trial, the court ruled on three pre-charge issues.

First, the court held that post-offence conduct evidence regarding a Facebook profile change and a payment in cocaine could not be used to infer intent, as the conduct was equally consistent with innocent explanations.

Second, the court denied the Crown's request to urge an adverse inference against the accused for failing to call a witness to corroborate his intoxication defence, noting it would improperly shift the burden of proof.

Finally, the court removed jury instructions on alternate modes of participation after the accused conceded he caused the victim's death as a principal.

During a murder trial, the defence sought to qualify a clinical pharmacist as an expert to provide opinion evidence on the effects of cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol on the accused's brain and executive functions.

The Crown opposed the qualification, arguing the proposed evidence strayed into psychiatry and neurology.

Following a Mohan voir dire, the court qualified the witness as an expert in pharmacology to testify on the general effects of the drugs, but strictly limited his evidence, prohibiting opinions on consciousness, automatism, or conclusive statements about the accused's specific cognitive decoupling.

During a murder trial, the accused elected to testify.

In cross-examination, the Crown sought to play the entirety of the accused's 43-minute police statement for impeachment purposes.

The defence objected, arguing this would allow the Crown to impermissibly split its case.

The court dismissed the objection, finding that playing the statement in its entirety would not offend the rule against case-splitting, as the accused knew the case to meet, the statement contained numerous contradictions relevant to his state of mind, and playing it was the most efficient way to put the inconsistencies to him.

The Crown sought to introduce eleven autopsy photographs in a homicide trial where the accused allegedly struck the deceased with a hammer.

The defence contested the admissibility of two photographs that showed the deceased's face alongside the injuries.

The court applied the balancing test for probative value versus prejudicial effect.

Finding that the contested photographs were redundant because other uncontested photographs adequately showed the same injuries without displaying the deceased's face, the court excluded the two photographs to avoid unnecessary emotional impact on the jury.

During a first-degree murder trial, the defence sought to cross-examine a Crown witness on out-of-court exculpatory statements made by the accused.

The defence argued the statements were not tendered for the truth of their contents, but to test the witness's credibility and reliability.

The Crown objected to the use of these statements.

The court ruled that generally, out-of-court exculpatory utterances of an accused cannot be introduced through a non-accused witness to challenge credibility, as this offends the rules against hearsay and prior consistent statements.

The court permitted the defence to cross-examine the witness on one specific pre-offence statement to test her recollection, but prohibited questioning on another statement that appeared to be based on hearsay from other individuals.

The applicant, Nivethan Alakeswaran, sought a stay of proceedings after being convicted of aggravated assault, alleging a Charter breach (ss. 7 and 12) due to an assault by a Peel Regional Police constable during his post-arrest interview.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and incredible, and that the alleged assault was not established on a balance of probabilities.

During a trial for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of utterances made by the defendant to a detective.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing they were voluntary and that any Charter breach should not lead to exclusion.

The defence contended the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of the defendant's rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and thus should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found the utterances voluntary and no infringement of s. 10(a).

However, it found a serious breach of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel for 4.5 hours after the defendant asserted his right.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore ruled the utterances inadmissible.

The offender, an inmate at a detention centre, was convicted of aggravated assault and weapons offences following a pre-planned attack on another inmate using an edged weapon.

The Crown sought a consecutive sentence of 8 to 9 years, while the defence argued this would violate the totality principle given the offender's existing 10-year sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for violence within correctional facilities but found the Crown's proposed sentence would be crushing.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, with 2.5 years to be served consecutively and 2.5 years concurrently, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.