Shedrack Chukwuemeka Agbakwa

The accused was charged with sexual assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after touching a stranger's genital area and brandishing a meat cleaver.

The court found the accused committed the actus reus of the offences.

The Crown brought an application to have the accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of a mental disorder.

Based on expert psychiatric evidence, the court found the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The accused was found NCR on both counts and the matter was referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old victim during a drug-related dispute, and to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment less credit for 750 days of presentence custody, broken down as 8.5 years for manslaughter and 1.5 years consecutive for the drug trafficking offense.

The court considered sentencing ranges, aggravating factors including the use of a firearm and the insidious nature of fentanyl, and mitigating factors including the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal history, and harsh conditions in presentence custody.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained from his cell phone, arguing the search warrant lacked reasonable and probable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information.

The court found that the ITO contained significant errors and omissions, which were not minor or made in good faith, and that without the excised information, the ITO did not establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search of the applicant's cell phone.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the serious nature of the Charter breach and the high expectation of privacy in cell phone data outweighed society's interest in the admission of the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The applicants, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter motion alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by a search of a residence based on a warrant obtained using confidential informant information.

The court found that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient credibility regarding the informants, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence (fentanyl, cocaine, and a firearm) under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's strong interest in adjudicating serious offences on their merits.

The applicants sought a declaration that their section 8 Charter rights were violated by the police and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded standing for one applicant but contested it for the other, arguing he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the target apartment.

The court ruled that the contested applicant had standing, relying on the totality of the Crown's allegations to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy, distinguishing the case from R. v. Osman.

T.P., a young person, sought a review of his youth sentence of 17 months secure custody and 8 months 25 days community supervision for five bank robberies.

The court, pursuant to s. 94(19) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, considered T.P.'s progress in custody, including his positive behaviour, educational pursuits, and efforts towards rehabilitation, despite being transferred to an adult facility where rehabilitative programming was limited.

The court found that T.P. met the burden to show sufficient change to justify a modification of his sentence, concluding that further programming available in the community would better serve his rehabilitation and the long-term protection of society.

The court ordered T.P.'s release from custody to conditional supervision with strict conditions.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of photographic and video evidence in a youth criminal justice trial for armed bank robbery.

The prosecution sought to introduce images from a co-accused's cell phone, allegedly showing the young person wearing clothing identical to that of a suspect.

The defense challenged the evidence's provenance and authenticity.

The court, applying principles of conditional admissibility for photographic evidence, found the images relevant and material.

Despite limited information on their origin, the court ruled them admissible, emphasizing that authentication requirements vary with probative value and that issues of weight are for the trier of fact.

The young person, T.P., charged with armed bank robbery, brought an application to exclude DNA evidence obtained via a warrant, alleging breaches of Charter rights (ss. 7, 8, 10(a)).

The court found that the police failed to inform the issuing justice of T.P.'s status as a young person, thereby omitting statutory protections under s. 487.07(4) of the Criminal Code, and that the DNA sampling procedure was improperly executed (failure to sterilize).

Applying the Grant test for exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found the Charter breaches serious and their impact significant, outweighing society's interest in admitting the reliable DNA evidence.

The application to exclude the DNA evidence was granted.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal and a stay of proceedings in a multi-accused robbery trial, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence and granting a stay for lost evidence.

The respondents cross-appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence due to insufficient reasons and in granting a stay without assessing prejudice.

The Crown's appeal was granted, setting aside the acquittals and stay, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

The respondents' cross-appeals against conviction were dismissed as the similar act rulings had benefited them or were consented to, and other grounds lacked merit.

The accused, J.Q.H., sought a review of a detention order following charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and firearms offenses.

The initial bail hearing resulted in detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The review, prompted by COVID-19 as a material change in circumstances, considered an essentially identical release plan with the accused's mother and grandmother as sureties.

The court found the Crown's case strong, supported by surveillance video and eyewitness identification, despite defence arguments.

The proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable due to their limited knowledge and apparent indifference to the accused's criminal activities, leading to a finding of substantial likelihood of reoffending.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for release, maintaining detention on both secondary and tertiary grounds, with the COVID-19 risk being a minor factor given the accused's age and health.

The applicant, Mohamed Aden, sought a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing for robbery and gun offences.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed, specifically regarding a modified bail plan with additional sureties (his mother and aunt) that could not be presented at the initial hearing due to interpreter unavailability and a perceived ruling by the Justice of the Peace.

The court found the defence's decision to proceed with a weaker plan initially was legitimate and reasonable, allowing the new evidence.

On review, the court assessed the new bail plan against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

It found the strengthened surety plan, involving older and more responsible family members, adequately addressed public safety concerns and maintained confidence in the administration of justice, despite the seriousness of the charges and the reverse onus.

The applicant's release on house arrest bail was granted, though a requested work exception was denied at that stage.

Following a traffic stop for an unilluminated rear light, the accused brought a Charter application challenging their arrests, searches, and the seizure of firearms.

The court held that the driver was unlawfully arrested for breach of probation because the probation order plainly permitted him to be out during curfew while with the mother of his child, and the officers had reviewed that order.

The court further found the asserted marijuana-based grounds for arresting the passenger were not established, rendering that arrest a pretext and unlawful.

Applying the Grant framework, the court characterized the police conduct as very serious, found significant impact on the accuseds’ liberty and privacy interests, and excluded the two firearms as against the driver and the firearm found on the passenger.

A home invasion robbery occurred at a Toronto townhouse complex on March 3, 2016.

Three armed robbers entered a residence, demanded money at gunpoint, and fled with cash, a phone, and chocolate milk.

The robbers were observed on surveillance footage entering another unit in the complex.

Two defendants were arrested approximately six hours later at that unit.

The Crown sought to commit them for trial based on resemblance evidence and their presence at the unit where the robbers fled.

The court found that the identification evidence amounted only to resemblance, not identification, and that critical gaps in surveillance evidence prevented reasonable inferences connecting the defendants to the robbery.

Both defendants were discharged.

The accused was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer.

The offences occurred in 2011, prior to amendments restricting conditional sentences.

The court noted the accused's positive rehabilitation, lack of criminal record, and a prior ruling granting a significant sentence reduction due to Charter breaches.

A six-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The applicant, Conrad Carter, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduced sentence after being unlawfully detained for approximately 36 hours, breaching s. 503(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the over-holding serious, exacerbated by police failure to address the applicant's health complaints, though the conduct was deemed negligent rather than intentional.

Applying the "clearest of cases" test for a stay, the court determined that a stay was not warranted given the societal interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges.

The application for a stay was dismissed, but the court indicated it would impose a significant reduction in sentence as an alternative remedy for the Charter breach.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases.

The defence sought a stay of proceedings based on lost evidence relating to the undercover officer’s cell phone number and related records.

The court held that although the police failed to properly record and preserve the phone number, the loss did not result in irremediable prejudice or justify a stay under the principles governing lost evidence and abuse of process.

The identification evidence, including two face‑to‑face drug transactions, a photographic lineup, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the apartment associated with the dealer, was sufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt despite flaws in the lineup procedure.

The accused brought a third party records application seeking cellphone records associated with a number subscribed to by the complainant.

The defence argued the records could confirm or refute alleged post‑incident communication between the complainant and the accused, relevant to credibility and full answer and defence.

Applying the two‑stage framework under ss. 278.3 and 278.5 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Mills and O’Connor, the court considered likely relevance, privacy interests, and the probative value of the requested records.

The court held that the accused met the threshold of likely relevance, noting the limited but potentially probative timeframe and the relatively lower privacy interest in call‑log records compared to counselling records.

The records were ordered produced to the court for judicial review, with further submissions scheduled on whether disclosure to the defence should follow.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of religion regarding her transfer to a different library branch.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement negotiated by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had neither signed the Minutes of Settlement nor implicitly accepted its terms, as the benefits were unilaterally imposed by the employer.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed.

The applicant's union requested to intervene to address its actions regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled and dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the respondent's request for dismissal.