Tara Mimnagh

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

The accused, Emily Rajczak-McGuigan, was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.00.

Police found her unconscious in a vehicle with drugs and cash.

The accused testified that she possessed the drugs to overdose and end her life, not to traffic them, and provided alternative sources for the cash.

The court applied the principle of contemporaneity, requiring the mens rea (intention to traffic) to coincide with the actus reus (possession) at the material time.

The court accepted the accused's credible testimony that she intended to die by suicide and did not intend to traffic the drugs at the time of her discovery.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the intent to traffic beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found not guilty on both charges.

Faizan Ali was found guilty of multiple weapons and drug trafficking offences following a motor vehicle collision.

He absconded prior to his sentencing hearing.

The court imposed a global sentence, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and loaded illegal handguns, and the fact that offences were committed while on a release order.

Mitigating factors, such as his youth and minimal prior record, were considered.

Sentences were imposed in absentia, with some counts stayed under the Kienapple principle and others made concurrent or consecutive to achieve a fit global sentence.

The accused, Matthew Taylor, was charged with four counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and one count of breach of probation.

Taylor challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the subsequent search of a backpack, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found the arrest and search were lawful, primarily based on officer safety concerns, and that the seized substances were admissible.

The court also found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor was in possession of the controlled substances.

Raven Joseph-Soroka and Ashley Wilson were charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on police surveillance of the accused's movements and the items found in their vehicle, including fentanyl, a digital scale, numerous small baggies, and cash.

The court found that when viewed cumulatively and in light of human experience, the circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative explanations for the accused's activities, leading to convictions for both accused on both charges.

Joseph-Soroka was found to be a party to Wilson's trafficking under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

The offender was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, hydromorphone, and oxycodone, as well as possession of a prohibited weapon and proceeds of crime.

The court found that despite Charter breaches during the arrest, the evidence was admissible.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was found to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain, not an addict-trafficker.

Taking into account the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the pandemic, the court imposed a global sentence of 5 years, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Cadence Beauparlant, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence seized during and after his arrest, alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the police lacked objectively reasonable grounds for the initial arrest for "failure to remain at the scene of a collision," thus breaching sections 8 and 9.

However, the court found no breach of section 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, as the accused did not clearly invoke his right to counsel and police attempts to contact his family were reasonable.

Applying the Grant test for s. 24(2) exclusion, the court weighed the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct (found to be an understandable error in judgment, not flagrant misconduct), the impact on the accused's Charter interests (real but not most serious), and society's interest in adjudication on the merits (high, given the serious drug and weapon charges).

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants for a residence and motor vehicle on section 8 Charter grounds, arguing insufficient credible and reliable evidence supported the issuance of the warrants.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements, material omissions, and insufficient indicia of informant credibility and reliability.

After excising erroneous information and considering unredacted portions under the Garofoli "Step Six" process, the court determined there were insufficient grounds establishing a credibly based probability that evidence would be found at either location.

The court excluded all evidence seized from both the residence and motor vehicle under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder remain on the secure forensic unit of a hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of non-compliance with medication, and psychological testing indicating high risk of psychotic relapse and violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code for delivering a single kick to the head of an already injured victim who was lying on the floor of a prisoner holding cell.

The assault occurred during an incident in the Milton Courthouse bullpen on April 8, 2011.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault but rejected the Crown's argument that he was acting as a party to the assault under section 21(2).

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate quantum of sentence, the application of sentencing principles, and the controversial issue of enhanced pre-trial custody credit under section 719(3.1).