Sina Shabestary

On a pre-trial Charter application in a first degree murder prosecution, the accused alleged that his s. 10(b) rights were breached because his brief Brydges duty counsel consultation was constitutionally deficient and because police failed to facilitate a second consultation before routine post-arrest evidence-gathering steps.

The court held that the police fulfilled both their informational and implementational duties by promptly advising the accused of his rights and facilitating private contact with duty counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

Applying Sinclair, Willier, LaFrance, and Dussault, the court found no objectively observable change in circumstances and no basis requiring police to monitor advice quality or provide renewed access before photographs, fingerprints, clothing seizure, and hand swabs.

The court further held that duty counsel providing summary legal advice is not a state actor and that s. 10(b) guarantees access to counsel, not the quality of legal advice received.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion in a first-degree murder case to admit hearsay statements and video-recorded police interviews of the deceased's eight-year-old daughter.

The child witnessed a struggle between the accused and her mother, during which she heard her mother say 'let me go' and the accused reply 'wait, wait, wait, wait'.

The court ruled the mother's statement admissible as a res gestae spontaneous utterance and under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The accused's statement was admitted as a party admission.

The court also admitted the child's video statements under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, subject to editing, and granted testimonial aids including testimony via closed-circuit television with a support person and support dog.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

This criminal trial concerned the identity of the individual who fatally stabbed the victim during a group assault following a drug theft.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as no direct evidence of the stabbing was presented.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of several youth witnesses, particularly regarding their observations of the accused's possession of a knife before and after the incident, and alleged adoptive admissions.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and unreliability in key witness testimonies, and determined that the circumstantial evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

The accused, Jonathan Salazar-Blanco, was charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

The Crown alleged he conspired to find and kill Alex Vinogradsky in Costa Rica, motivated by tow-truck business disputes and retaliation for shootings.

The defence argued Salazar-Blanco merely pretended to agree to the scheme without genuine intent.

The court found Salazar-Blanco's police statement largely incredible but concluded that, despite his dishonesty, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether he truly intended to carry out the conspiracy's objective.

The court found no reliable evidence of motive or concrete acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, leading to an acquittal.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused for trial on charges of attempted murder and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose after one of the accused was robbed of drugs and money, prompting him to obtain a firearm and travel with the co-accused to the city where the robbers were located, before being intercepted by police.

The court found sufficient evidence of joint possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on intercepted communications and the circumstances of their arrest.

However, the court discharged the accused on the attempted murder charge, finding that travelling to the city with a loaded firearm was mere preparation and not sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of attempted murder.

Zaid Mohammed was found guilty of aggravated assault following a plea and appeared for sentencing.

The Crown sought five years (60 months) in custody, while the defence sought 30 to 36 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the premeditated, armed, and violent nature of the attack, the severe and permanent injuries to the victim (loss of sight in one eye), and the offender's criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, family support, guilty plea, participation in rehabilitation programs while incarcerated, and the provocation related to the theft of his dog.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody (Summers credit), harsh lockdown conditions (Duncan credit), and stringent bail conditions (Downes credit), a total of 18 months and 10 days of credit was granted, leaving a remaining sentence of 21 months and 21 days to be served.

Ancillary orders for a mandatory DNA sample and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused, Zaid Mohammed, sought a bail review after being denied bail by a lower court.

He was facing charges related to three incidents, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, simple drug possession, and breaches of recognizance.

The review court found a material change in circumstances due to the withdrawal of several serious federal drug trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

Considering the accused's minimal criminal record, youth, and a stringent proposed release plan involving house arrest, a substantial surety pledge, and electronic monitoring, the court found that detention was not necessary on secondary or tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was granted.

The defence sought to admit expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Julian Gojer on dissociative amnesia to explain the accused's memory loss regarding the number of stabbings, arguing it was relevant to credibility and intent in a second-degree murder trial.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was unnecessary, inadmissible, confusing, and lacked probative value, especially since Dr. Gojer could not conclusively state the accused experienced dissociation or link it to intent.

The court, applying the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert evidence admissibility, found that the evidence had limited probative value and was not necessary to assist the jury, as the issue of memory loss for the number of stabs was within the jury's common sense.

The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence, including potential confusion and disproportionate weight, substantially outweighed its probative value.

The application to admit the expert opinion was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order to allow a race-based challenge for cause using a multiple-choice question format during jury selection.

The Crown did not oppose the race-based challenge itself, but objected to the proposed multiple-choice format, advocating for the standard "Parks question" approach.

The court granted the applicant's request to conduct a race-based challenge for cause but denied the use of the specific multiple-choice format.

The judge ruled that the standard open-ended Parks question was sufficient and that the proposed format would unduly prolong the process and potentially confuse prospective jurors without being more effective.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving domestic violence.

In Hamilton, the accused held a knife toward his pregnant girlfriend, threatening to kill her and their unborn child, and assaulted a pregnant witness.

In Aurora, the accused spat in the face of his ex-girlfriend, threatened to kill her, and damaged her vehicle.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 6 days to be served, followed by 2 years of probation with strict conditions including anger management and PARS counselling, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and DNA registration.

The accused was charged with eight offences arising from a troubled seven-year on-and-off relationship with the complainant, with whom he had two children.

The charges included assault with a weapon, threatening to cause death, break and enter, sexual assault, and mischief occurring in Hamilton (2012), Richmond Hill (January 2017), and Aurora (February 2017).

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness, with his evidence contradicted by credible external evidence and the testimony of a corroborating witness.

The complainant and corroborating witness were found to be credible and reliable on most counts.

The accused was convicted on six counts but acquitted on the break and enter and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence on those specific allegations.