Tara Brun

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from a spontaneous altercation outside a Toronto pub in which an unarmed victim died from a single stab wound to the neck.

The parties jointly proposed a five-year penitentiary sentence but disputed whether additional credit should be granted for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including lockdowns, triple-bunking, and inadequate medical treatment.

The court accepted that the detention conditions were deplorable and that the accused was denied adequate care for a wrist injury, but held that a further sentence reduction beyond standard Summers credit would render the sentence unfit and underweight denunciation and deterrence.

A five-year sentence was imposed with 566 days of pre-sentence credit, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

Joshua Auld pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence proposed five years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a handgun and planning, and significant mitigating factors such as Mr. Auld's guilty plea, mental health issues, substance abuse recovery, challenging personal history rooted in systemic anti-Black racism, and onerous bail conditions.

Applying the principle of totality and considering the impact of anti-Black racism on moral culpability and rehabilitation potential, the court found a six-year and three-month aggregate sentence unduly harsh.

A global sentence of five years was imposed, with specific terms for each count and credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, Martin Ngigi, charged with assault, brought an O'Connor application for the disclosure of the complainant J.G.'s extensive medical records related to muscular dystrophy and potential cognitive conditions.

The application sought to establish "likely relevance" to the mechanism of injury, credibility, reliability, and competence to testify.

The court dismissed the broad request for all records, finding insufficient evidentiary basis, particularly the lack of an affidavit, to establish "likely relevance" for most records.

However, the court found two specific outpatient records from J.G.'s muscular dystrophy specialist, proximate to the alleged incident, to be "likely relevant" for information on prescriptions, dosage, timing of medications, and the status of J.G.'s muscular dystrophy.

These two records were ordered to proceed to a Stage 2 review for potential disclosure to the defence, while the broader application was denied.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and threatening bodily harm against his wife.

The case turned entirely on credibility, as there was no independent corroborating evidence.

The complainant alleged the accused injured her clitoris and threatened her, while the accused denied the allegations.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found no reason to reject the accused's evidence and concluded it raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the alleged threatening words were too vague to constitute a threat.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought an application arguing that the abolition of peremptory challenges under Bill C-75 should not apply retrospectively to his case.

The court held that the repeal of section 634 of the Criminal Code is purely procedural and does not affect the applicant's substantive rights.

Consequently, the new jury selection regime applies retrospectively to the applicant's trial.

During a trial for second degree murder, the accused brought a Corbett application to prevent the Crown from cross-examining him on his criminal record should he choose to testify.

The accused's record included dated convictions for assault, weapons offences, and property offences.

The court applied the Corbett factors and concluded that the probative value of the convictions was outweighed by their prejudicial effect, particularly given their age and the risk of propensity reasoning.

The application was granted, and the Crown was prohibited from cross-examining the accused on his criminal record.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including two knife confrontations with co-tenants and landlord complaints leading to an eviction notice.

The accused conceded the admissibility of a recent knife confrontation with the deceased but opposed other incidents.

The court ruled that an earlier knife incident with other co-tenants (McDonald and Augustine) was inadmissible due to its minimal probative value, stemming from inconsistent witness testimony, and high prejudicial effect, including risks of moral and reasoning prejudice.

Similarly, evidence of general complaints received by the landlord prior to the immediate pre-stabbing events was deemed inadmissible for similar reasons, while evidence related to the immediate pre-stabbing conflict and eviction notice was allowed.

The offender, a 24-year-old first offender, was convicted of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the firearm and drugs, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, lack of record, remorse, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and totality, followed by 24 months of probation.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicant, having been convicted of fraud and money laundering, sought to bring a second s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay the day before his scheduled sentencing hearing.

His first application had been dismissed during the trial for failure to perfect.

The court dismissed the second application, finding it was an attempt to delay sentencing, failed to comply with the Practice Direction requiring such applications to be brought 60 days before trial, and was not perfected with the necessary transcripts.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and committing offences for a criminal organization in relation to a scheme to fraudulently obtain Canada Small Business Financing Program loans from various banks.

The Crown alleged that the defendants used sham corporations, forged financial documents, and inflated or fabricated invoices for leasehold improvements and equipment to deceive the banks into advancing loan funds, which were then laundered among the defendants.

The court found that Marshall Kazman and Gad Levy orchestrated the scheme and were guilty of fraud, money laundering, and the criminal organization offence.

Ali Vaez Tehrani and Madjid Vaez Tehrani were found guilty of fraud on specific counts but acquitted of the criminal organization charge.

Armand Levy, Ekaterina Chapkina, and Kamyar Ghatan were acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that a proper demand was made with reasonable grounds, that the accused intentionally refused to comply, and that no reasonable excuse existed.

The defence argued that incomplete information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal affected the validity of the demand, vitiated proof of mens rea, provided a reasonable excuse, constituted officially induced error, and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected all defence arguments and entered a conviction.

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The offender argued for the 10‑year statutory minimum while the Crown sought 13 years.

The court considered the nature and brutality of the stabbing, the circumstances surrounding the meeting with the victim, and the offender’s efforts to conceal the crime.

Although the offender had no criminal record and some mitigating personal circumstances, the attack was particularly violent and involved luring the victim to an isolated location.

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors and considering jury recommendations, the court imposed a 12‑year period of parole ineligibility.

The defendant pleaded guilty to seven charges of long-term sexual abuse of four boys: three nephews and the son of a close family friend.

The abuse of the nephews occurred over approximately four to eight years, beginning shortly after their father's death when they were vulnerable.

The abuse of the family friend's son occurred over approximately one year.

The defendant was in his mid-forties when the abuse began and is now fifty-nine years old with no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of five years in the penitentiary, less credit for one year of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a sentence of four years to be served.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police executing a search warrant located a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition hidden between a mattress and boxspring in his bedroom.

The accused argued the firearm belonged to another individual and sought exclusion of the evidence based on a s. 8 Charter violation.

The court had previously ruled the firearm and ammunition admissible.

After assessing the credibility of the accused and other witnesses, the court rejected the defence explanation and found the accused knowingly possessed the firearm in his bedroom while subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a probation order.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused were tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and assault arising from alleged abuse of a child over several years within a family setting.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and corroborative aspects of a sibling’s evidence, while the defence emphasized inconsistencies between witness accounts and prior statements.

The court accepted that the complainant was generally credible but identified material inconsistencies regarding key events, timing, and corroborating circumstances.

In the absence of forensic or independent third‑party evidence, these inconsistencies created a reasonable doubt.

The accused were acquitted on all counts.