Simon King

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and thereby causing the death of another person.

The collision occurred on April 18, 2023, when the offender, driving at over 110 km/h in a 50 km/h zone with an expired driver's licence and a blood alcohol level of 210-214 mg/100ml, struck a vehicle from behind, fatally injuring the victim.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence, an eight-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, balancing the serious aggravating circumstances against the offender's previously unblemished character and strong rehabilitative potential.

Mauricio Aguirre pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to cause death and mischief to property under $5,000.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, and the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

After reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors, including Aguirre’s remorse, compliance with release conditions, and rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a conditional discharge with probation and ancillary orders.

The offender, Zeishan Gill, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved fleeting possession of a firearm belonging to another individual during a police raid.

Despite a prior firearm conviction from 2013, the court considered significant mitigating factors, including the offender's guilty plea, demonstrated remorse, compliance with stringent bail conditions for over two years, and successful engagement in drug addiction rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day, while the defence proposed the same length of sentence to be served as a conditional sentence in the community.

The court accepted the defence's position, imposing a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence with strict terms (house arrest for the first half, curfew for the second half), followed by two years of probation, a lifetime weapon prohibition order under s. 109, and a DNA order.

The applicant, facing a sexual assault trial, brought a renewed application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter after his first trial ended in a mistrial due to late Crown disclosure.

The court found the mistrial was caused by police negligence in failing to disclose two potential witnesses.

After apportioning some delay to the defence for failing to hold open a proposed trial date, the net delay was calculated at 30 months and 16 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.

This criminal trial concerned charges of voyeurism, unlawfully distributing an intimate video, assault causing bodily harm, and criminal harassment.

The complainant alleged the defendant took non-consensual intimate videos and photographs, distributed one such video, and engaged in assault and harassment.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible regarding non-consensual recording of intimate images, leading to convictions for voyeurism.

However, the Crown failed to prove the distribution of the intimate video due to lack of admissible evidence on how it was obtained by a third party.

The assault charge was dismissed, as the defendant's actions in retrieving his property were deemed a reasonable defence of property under the Criminal Code, and the injury was accidental.

The criminal harassment charge was also dismissed, as the complainant's actions did not demonstrate a fear for her safety despite the use of a tracking device.

The accused was convicted of internet child luring, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and breach of probation after responding to an undercover police sting.

The court found the appropriate range for internet child luring to be three to five years.

Weighing the aggravating factors, including the accused's prior record and breach of probation, against the limited mitigating factors, the court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment.

The conviction for making sexually explicit material available was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The applicants, William Cummins and Matthew Moreira, charged with first-degree murder and robbery alongside Patrick Smith, sought severance from Mr. Smith for their joint trial.

The motion was based on the potential impact of Mr. Smith's statement to undercover officers, which they argued was exculpatory for them and necessary for their full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the legal presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert, the risk of inconsistent verdicts, and the truth-seeking function of a single trial.

The court found that antagonistic defences were likely to arise, and that carefully crafted jury instructions could mitigate any prejudice.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to leave forcible confinement murder under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code with the jury as a route to liability.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed it was an accident.

The court applied the air of reality test and found that, based on the primary facts and circumstantial evidence, a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer that the accused forcibly confined the victim by moving him from the front seat to the back seat of his car at gunpoint before shooting him.

The court ruled that this route of liability would be left with the jury.

The accused were charged with multiple offences relating to the theft and fraudulent claiming of a $12.5 million winning Super 7 lottery ticket.

The Crown alleged that a convenience store clerk stole the winning free play ticket from a customer and subsequently had his daughter claim the prize.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including lottery terminal data, cellphone records, and banking records, the court found the father guilty of theft, fraud, and possession of stolen property.

The daughter was found guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property.

The son was found guilty of stealing other lottery tickets but acquitted of the charges relating to the $12.5 million ticket.

All accused were acquitted of money laundering.

Three accused were charged jointly with first degree murder in the beating death of Zaher Nourredine and robbery of Mitchell Conery.

The Crown relied on section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for murder and section 231(5)(e) for first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter and robbery but opposed committal on first degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on first degree murder and robbery, applying the Sheppard test and finding that the evidence supported inferences of the requisite mens rea for murder and that the confinement of one victim (Conery) was a separate and distinct act from the murder of the other victim (Nourredine), satisfying the requirements of constructive first degree murder under the multiple victim scenario established in R. v. Russell.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 79 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown conceded the delay but argued that significant portions were attributable to defence waiver or conduct, and that exceptional circumstances, including case complexity and transitional considerations, justified the remaining delay.

The court found that defence delay (waiver and conduct) accounted for 1017 days for Jun-Chul Chung and 938 days for Kathleen Chung.

Additionally, 347 days of delay were attributed to case complexity (voluminous disclosure, multiple co-accused, interpreter requirements, and time for submissions).

Considering these factors and the transitional exceptional circumstances for pre-Jordan cases, including the seriousness of the offences and institutional delay, the court concluded that the delay was justified.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.