Taran Dhruv Boodoosingh

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay, even after accounting for a deduction for judicial illness, fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The defence argued that despite being under the ceiling, the Crown's "culture of complacency" regarding disclosure and the overall timeline meant the case took "markedly longer than it should have." The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate "sustained efforts to expedite proceedings" and did not establish that the case took "markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The application for a stay was dismissed, with the court reiterating that stays below the Jordan ceiling are rare, particularly in homicide cases.

Lewis Moye pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, highlighting mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior record, guilty plea, efforts towards rehabilitation, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation with community service, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the firearm.

The judge balanced the seriousness of the offence with the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects and background circumstances, concluding that a conditional sentence could adequately achieve sentencing objectives.

The accused pleaded guilty to luring contrary to s. 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily, invoking a mandatory six-month minimum sentence.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the minimum sentence provision under s. 7 and s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court found a s. 12 breach that was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, and imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent incarceration with a three-year probationary period, rather than the mandatory minimum of six months.

The accused was charged with invitation to sexual touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case rested on the identification evidence of a 14-year-old complainant who encountered a stranger on May 8, 2016, in Newcastle.

The man made sexual advances toward her and later pointed to a hair salon as his residence.

The complainant identified the accused through a Facebook search approximately 11 to 18 days later after overhearing her father mention the name "Richard Pearce." The court found the complainant to be truthful and credible but dismissed the charge due to insufficient reliability of the identification evidence.

The court held that while a conviction can rest on a single eyewitness, the circumstances here—a brief one-minute encounter with a stranger, delayed identification through social media after suggestive circumstances, and limited distinguishing features—created reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving, fail to stop for police, and drive while disqualified arising from a high-speed chase on November 17, 2015.

The Crown sought consecutive sentences totalling 12-15 months, while the defence sought a global 12-month sentence, arguing for reduced sentences due to serious immigration consequences.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 12 months (6 months for impaired driving with 3-month credit for restrictive bail conditions, 4 months for fail to stop for police, and 2 months for drive disqualified), along with a 10-year driving prohibition and 3 years probation.

The court considered collateral immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but ensured sentences remained proportionate to the offences.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of Fraud Over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The frauds involved the misappropriation of approximately $575,583.64 from the Kendalwood Montessori School between December 2012 and May 2014, and fraudulent investment schemes involving multiple complainants.

The defendant, a chartered accountant, exploited positions of trust and personal relationships to commit the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 25 months incarceration on the Kendalwood fraud count (consecutive to other counts), ordered restitution of $450,602.64, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $450,602.64 payable over six years, and issued a ten-year prohibition order restricting the defendant's ability to provide financial and investment advice.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267 of the Criminal Code.

The incident arose from a parking dispute in a laneway outside a Chinese food restaurant in Whitby.

After an argument and physical confrontation, the defendant punched the complainant in the face, causing him to lose two teeth and have one chipped.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant guilty, rejecting the self-defence claim as the defendant's actions were an unreasonable over-reaction to a minor struggle and did not constitute a proportionate response to any perceived threat.

Following a five-day trial, the defendant was convicted of public mischief, attempted fraud over $5,000, and perjury.

The defendant falsely reported the theft of a motor vehicle to defraud an insurance company, obtained a proof of loss statement by false pretence, and lied under oath regarding the number of keys he possessed.

The defendant, a 37-year-old engineer with no prior criminal record, was sentenced to 90 days in jail for perjury, with sentence suspended for the remaining counts and placed on probation for one year with conditions including no contact with specified individuals and a DNA sample order.

The defendant was charged with public mischief, attempted fraud over $5,000, false pretence, and perjury arising from a false report of motor vehicle theft.

The Crown alleged the defendant falsely reported the theft of a 2004 Land Rover Range Rover to defraud his insurance company.

The evidence established that the defendant purchased the vehicle, ordered a second key nine days later, had the vehicle serviced, and then reported it stolen.

The defendant made false statements in his insurance claim and under oath regarding the number of keys he possessed.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts after analyzing the voluntariness of his police statement, the admissibility of his sworn examination, and the corroboration requirements for perjury.

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault, and threatening following a four-day trial.

The sentencing decision addresses a pattern of domestic violence spanning several years, including an incident on May 9, 2011, where the defendant threw boiling water on his spouse and infant child.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and weapons prohibition.

The decision emphasizes denunciation and specific deterrence in the context of domestic violence, while considering the defendant's prior brain injury and extensive criminal history of violence.

The defendant was charged with eight offences arising from domestic violence incidents: two counts of assault with a weapon (May 9, 2011), four counts of assault (December 30, 2010; February 10, 2011; April 2011), and two counts of threatening death (April 2011).

The Crown alleged a pattern of abuse against the defendant's wife.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fabricated the charges to prevent him from obtaining custody of the children after learning he intended to leave the marriage.

The court found the defendant guilty of six counts (assault with a weapon on May 9, 2011; assault on December 30, 2010; assault on February 10, 2011; assault on April 2011; and threatening death on April 2011) and not guilty of one count of assault (April 2011 choking incident) and one count of threatening death (shooting threat).

The court rejected the defendant's credibility based on his delay in surrendering to police and his manipulative conduct, and accepted the complainant's detailed and corroborated testimony.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, robbery, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 20-year-old student who was abducted at gunpoint from outside his school, robbed of personal items and money, and driven to his home where the assailants attempted to enter.

The defence challenged the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of his identification of the accused, arguing the story was fanciful and improbable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted his identification of the accused based on prior acquaintance, the name "Bala" (a shortened form of the accused's first name), and the circumstances of observation during the prolonged incident.

The accused was convicted on all charges except forcible confinement, which was stayed as it merged with the kidnapping conviction.