Sylvana Capogreco

The accused was convicted after trial of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The offences involved a carefully planned and orchestrated robbery of a teashop owner.

The accused gained entry to the shop under false pretences, then admitted three masked men who assaulted the victim and stole cash and personal items.

The Crown sought 30-36 months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a 30-month penitentiary sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the seriousness of the offences, the planning involved, and the group violence.

A conditional sentence was deemed insufficient despite the accused's rehabilitative prospects and lack of prior serious criminal history.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Shu Luo of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery based on circumstantial evidence including surveillance footage, seized clothing matching that worn by the suspect, and fingerprint analysis linking Luo to a glass mug used during the robbery.

The court found that the totality of the evidence, including expert fingerprint testimony and the defendant’s conduct during the incident, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Luo was the unmasked man who facilitated and participated in the robbery of Michael Cheng’s tea shop.

The decision highlights the admissibility and probative value of forensic fingerprint evidence and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish identity and participation in a criminal conspiracy.

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and surreptitiously making a visual recording, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit five video tapes depicting the alleged offences.

The court found the tapes had significant probative value regarding the complainant's level of consciousness and the timing of events.

To mitigate the substantial risk to the complainant's privacy and dignity, the parties agreed to several limits, including the applicant re-electing trial by judge alone, closing the courtroom when playing the tapes, and using an agreed statement of fact.

The court ruled the tapes admissible subject to these conditions.

The offender, a religious leader, was convicted of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and uttering a threat against a 15-year-old victim who was a member of his congregation.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by persons in a position of trust.

Applying the D.D. sentencing ranges, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.

The applicant, charged with being an accessory after the fact to a targeted contract killing, brought an originating bail application under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant assisted the principal offender by providing a place to change clothes, keeping the clothes, acting as an intermediary, and lying to police.

The court found the applicant failed to meet her onus on the secondary grounds due to her history of obstructing justice in a prior murder investigation, the vulnerability of surviving witnesses, and weaknesses in the proposed release plan.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary grounds given the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.