Thomas Pittman

A 19-year-old young person (Z.S.) was sentenced for first-degree murder committed when he was 16 years old.

The victim, Javonte Daley, was shot and killed on June 8, 2022, in a targeted shooting involving three assailants.

Z.S. pleaded guilty and admitted full participation in the murder.

The Crown initially sought an adult sentence but withdrew that position after receiving a psychological assessment.

The court imposed an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) order for nine years (five years in custody at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and four years in the community under conditional supervision), with a one-year credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentence reflects Z.S.'s significant mental health challenges, traumatic background, demonstrated remorse, and rehabilitation progress while balancing accountability and public protection.

The defendant, Sasikaran Thanapalasingam, was charged with first-degree murder of his estranged wife, Tharshika Jeganathan.

The murder involved a brutal machete attack, captured on video, following a history of domestic violence, bail breaches, and explicit threats.

The defence argued for a conviction of second-degree murder, asserting that the defendant's capacity to form the requisite intent was impaired by alcohol intoxication.

The court found the murder to be planned and deliberate, rejecting the intoxication defence by concluding that the defendant was not incapacitated to an appreciable degree at the time of the offence, despite later showing signs of severe intoxication.

The court emphasized the defendant's clear intent, planning, and physical coordination during the attack, finding him guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after speeding through a red light and colliding with two vehicles, injuring both drivers.

The court considered the accused's difficult upbringing, lengthy criminal record, and current 64-month sentence for unrelated offences.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to run concurrently with his existing sentence, along with a 12-month driving prohibition.

The accused, Michael Lights, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a collision.

The defense argued that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lights was the driver.

The court found the evidence overwhelming that Lights was the driver, based on witness testimony, identification via health card, and consistent descriptions.

The court then applied the legal principles for dangerous driving and criminal negligence, finding that Lights' conduct—speeding through a red light with non-functional lights, low brake pads, and bald tires on wet roads—constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and demonstrated wanton disregard for the safety of others.

Lights was found guilty on all four counts.

Emilio Georgiev was found guilty by a jury of robbery, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The victim, who is legally blind, was attacked with a knife, robbed, and had his CNIB cane stolen.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the violent, callous nature of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victim, the use of a weapon, and the offender's criminal record and commission of the offences while on bail.

Defence counsel sought a sentence of 2 to 4 years or time served, highlighting the offender's youth, family support, work ethic, and lack of permanent physical injury to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the gratuitous theft of the CNIB cane, the use of a weapon, and the offender's criminal history and bail status.

Mitigating factors included family support, work ethic, and rehabilitation goals.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years imprisonment, less 771 days for pretrial custody (calculated at 1.5:1), and imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Enhanced credit for harsh incarceration conditions was denied due to lack of evidence of adverse effect on the offender.

The Crown sought to admit the preliminary inquiry testimony of a shooting victim under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code and the principled exception to the hearsay rule after the witness failed to appear for trial and could not be located.

The witness had previously been declared hostile and repeatedly denied knowledge of the accused or the identity of the shooter, while the Crown relied on intercepted telephone conversations to suggest otherwise.

The court held that the reliability of the testimony was deeply compromised and that the jury would be unable to assess the witness’s demeanor or interpret his evasive and sarcastic responses.

Much of the proposed evidence depended on untested hearsay and Crown questioning that embedded the prosecution theory rather than probative admissions by the witness.

Balancing fairness to the accused against the probative value of the evidence, the court exercised its discretion under s. 715(1) to exclude most of the prior testimony.

The accused was charged with two counts of Fail to Comply with Recognizance, alleging breach of house arrest conditions and possession of alcohol contrary to a release undertaking.

The Crown sought to admit certified copies and exemplified documents (Information and Recognizance of Bail) under section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown conceded it had not provided adequate notice as required by section 28.

The Crown alternatively argued the documents were admissible under common law as exemplifications or as a principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court rejected both alternative arguments, holding that both certified copies and exemplifications require notice under the CEA, and that the documents could not satisfy the necessity requirement of the Khan exception since original documents were available.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless use of a firearm and causing a disturbance by being drunk in a public place.

The offences occurred when the defendant, intoxicated after drinking with co-workers, returned to his workplace with a loaded shotgun and fired one shot into the ceiling in the presence of witnesses.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days on an intermittent basis, followed by 15 months of probation with conditions including alcohol counselling, community service, and a weapons prohibition.

The court balanced mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, good work history, remorse) against aggravating factors (dangerous conduct, presence of others, combination of guns and alcohol) and determined that deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence despite the defendant's low risk to reoffend.