Susan Pennypacker

The accused was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited handgun found during a vehicle search.

The search followed a traffic stop where police noted evidence of cannabis.

Despite findings of Charter breaches (ss. 10(a) and 10(b)), the evidence was admitted.

The accused, a 45-year-old first offender with a strong pro-social background, community support, and health issues (sickle cell disease), sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and systemic factors (including anti-Black racism).

Finding the accused presented no danger to the community, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

Three accused were charged with discharging a firearm with intent to wound, reckless discharge, and unauthorized possession of a firearm following a shootout outside a commercial building.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and CCTV footage to identify the shooters.

The court found the Crown proved the identity of two of the accused but failed to prove the identity of the third.

For the two identified accused, the Crown conceded it could not disprove self-defence regarding the discharge of the firearms, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the court found the two accused possessed the firearms prior to the altercation, defeating the self-defence claim for possession, resulting in convictions for unauthorized possession of a firearm.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault and assault with a weapon.

The accused, who has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, had been detained at a forensic psychiatry program.

Based on a joint submission, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of mental deterioration and violent acting out if not properly supported.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with discretionary privileges to allow for a gradual, supported transition to community living.

The court imposed sentence on a long-term offender designated in a prior decision dated July 21, 2025.

The offender was convicted of robbery and had a substantial criminal history including prior robbery convictions and an 18-year sentence for attempted murder.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The defence sought a time-served sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 10 months, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit of 4 years and 9 months, resulting in 2 years and 1 month to be served in federal penitentiary, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The sentence was based on the need for intensive treatment in a federal penitentiary to address the offender's polysubstance abuse, gambling addiction, and antisocial personality disorder.

Following a guilty plea to robbery, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation based on a lengthy violent record, institutional misconduct, and expert psychiatric evidence of high violent recidivism risk.

Applying the dangerous offender framework, the court accepted that the index robbery was a serious personal injury offence and that the offender posed a substantial risk of future violence absent treatment and controls, but held the Crown failed to prove intractability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that the offender had never received substantial treatment for polysubstance abuse and gambling addiction, despite evidence those conditions materially drove the offending, and that he had previously remained offence-free during a structured statutory release and for years thereafter.

The application for dangerous offender designation was therefore rejected.

The court instead found the statutory criteria for long-term offender designation met and directed that further sentencing submissions be heard.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

Sharoze Raja pleaded guilty to five counts, including two armed robberies (bank and armoured truck), unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, breach of a YCJA weapons prohibition, and failure to comply with a release order.

The offences involved significant threats of violence with firearms.

The court considered aggravating factors such as victim impact, planning, and the offender's role, alongside mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, remorse, difficult background (family violence, racism, learned helplessness), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the Defence sought the five-year mandatory minimum.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 761 days (approximately 25 months) to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Gregory Chevalier, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 80 mg.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, and 9 rights.

The court conducted a blended trial and Charter application.

The defence conceded impairment but disputed the identity of the driver and the "as soon as practicable" requirement for breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, and that the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be the driver, or alternatively, was in care or control of the vehicle under the presumption of operation.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused brought two pre-trial motions alleging Charter violations.

The first motion alleged a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court dismissed this motion, finding that after deducting defence delay and discrete exceptional circumstances (including the COVID-19 pandemic and legislative changes to preliminary inquiries), the net delay was below the 30-month ceiling.

The second motion sought to exclude a loaded firearm under s. 24(2) due to admitted violations of ss. 7 and 10(b) during the accused's arrest.

The court dismissed this motion, concluding that the firearm was discovered independently by a civilian witness and was not obtained in a manner that infringed the accused's rights, and that its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Omnibus Garofoli application challenging the naming of multiple accused persons in two authorizations to intercept private communications issued in Project Kraken, an investigation into criminal activity by the Deep Waters and Chester Le gangs in Toronto.

The applicants challenged their inclusion as named targets in the first authorization (March 25, 2019) and second authorization (May 21, 2019), as well as the inclusion of Maral Ashoury's telephone number in an earlier Transmission Data Recorder warrant (February 11, 2019).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli standard of review and upheld the authorizations, finding sufficient reliable evidence that the interception of the applicants' communications could assist in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

The applicant, Ishmael Robinson, challenged his inclusion as a target in a wiretap authorization (Auth #1) under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code, seeking exclusion of intercepted communications under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued that the grounds in the information to obtain (ITO) were vague and stale.

The Crown contended that the grounds, viewed holistically, met the low threshold for naming individuals in an ITO.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cumulative effect of the grounds established reasonable belief that the applicant's communications would assist the ongoing investigation, and the information was not stale given the large-scale nature of the criminal organization investigation.

Howard Burke and Devon Dinall were convicted by a jury of drug-related offences (cocaine trafficking) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court determined the factual basis for sentencing, rejecting the defence's argument that marihuana trafficking was also involved.

Howard Burke, a repeat offender, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for trafficking 2.320 kg of cocaine and concurrent three years for possession of $76,880 in proceeds.

Devon Dinall, a mid-level trafficker, was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic 306g of cocaine, concurrent three and a half years for trafficking, and concurrent one year for possession of $15,560 in proceeds.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, considering aggravating factors like the volume of drugs and prior records, and mitigating factors like employment and personal challenges.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The robberies involved the use of an imitation firearm at two pharmacies on the same day.

The assault occurred months later when the defendant, under the influence of cocaine and fentanyl, assaulted his mother, causing her a concussion.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for the robberies (concurrent) and six months imprisonment for the assault (consecutive), for a total of six and one-half years.

The court considered the defendant's prior robbery conviction, his substance abuse issues, his family support, and his guilty plea in determining the appropriate sentence.

The applicants, jointly charged with extortion, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was approximately 20 months.

The court found that the applicants were responsible for defence delay because they were unavailable for the first block of trial dates offered, bringing the net delay below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

Although the applicants demonstrated initiative in trying to expedite the proceedings, the court concluded that the case had not markedly exceeded its reasonable time requirements.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was convicted at trial of Impaired Operation Causing Bodily Harm and Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm following a high-speed crash that resulted in life-threatening injuries to a front-seat passenger and serious injuries to another passenger.

The court rejected the defence argument that the Kienapple rule precluded multiple convictions, finding the offences distinct as they address different aspects of road safety.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for dangerous driving (with 12 months concurrent for impaired driving), followed by 18 months probation, a 3-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors including the extreme speed, severity of injuries, and the accused's recent warning about drinking and driving against mitigating factors including his youth, good character, and low blood alcohol level.

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing bodily harm, dangerous operation causing bodily harm, and impaired operation following a serious motor vehicle collision that resulted in life-threatening injuries to passengers.

The Crown's case relied on expert toxicology evidence establishing a projected blood alcohol concentration of 66-96 mgs/100ml at the time of driving, the manner of driving, and accident reconstruction evidence.

The defence argued that the absence of physical indicia of impairment created reasonable doubt.

The court found that the accused's driving demonstrated mental impairment consistent with alcohol consumption, including failure to perceive the need to slow speed and failure to react to wet road conditions.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The accused, a repeat offender with a history of firearm offences, was convicted of discharging a restricted firearm and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

After being rebuffed by a woman outside an after-hours party, he discharged a handgun twice into the air.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought 12 to 14 years, while the defence sought 6.5 to 8 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 10 years (7 years and 3 months net of pre-trial custody).

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit for lockdowns, finding the conditions were not particularly harsh.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

The refusal was based on past misconduct while registered as a motor vehicle dealer, which included fraudulent transactions, title-washing, and failure to remit retail sales tax.

The Tribunal found that despite the appellant obtaining licences in other regulated industries since the misconduct, his past actions were serious, prolonged, and placed the public at risk.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The court ruled on the admissibility of a statement given by the accused to police investigating a serious motor vehicle accident.

The Crown sought to establish that the statement was voluntary, while the defence challenged its admissibility on the grounds that the accused was detained without being advised of his Charter rights to counsel.

The court found that the statement was voluntary and that no detention occurred, making the statement admissible in evidence.

The accused was charged with discharging a restricted or prohibited firearm and related offences after allegedly firing a handgun twice in the air outside an after-hours party.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance showing the accused raising his arm, the synchronized reactions of bystanders ducking and running, and the discovery of a single shell casing in the area.

The court evaluated the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony on firearm operation and the non-assertive conduct of bystanders, and found the accused guilty on all counts.