Thomas Surmanski

Sentencing of a first offender who pleaded guilty to uttering threats, assault with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, unlawful confinement (kidnapping), and disobeying a court order in the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused conducted a mock execution by pointing a handgun at the victim's head and pulling the trigger while their child was in the apartment, and two days after release on bail kidnapped the victim in violation of a no-contact order.

The court rejected the defence position of 6 years (time served) as insufficient to denounce the crimes, and imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, resulting in approximately 14 months further custody plus three years probation, along with firearms prohibition orders including a lifetime ban on the kidnapping count.

The accused pleaded guilty to break and enter, robbery, forcible confinement, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a violent home invasion.

The Crown sought an eight-year penitentiary sentence, while defence counsel argued for four years, emphasizing the accused's lesser involvement compared to co-accused, youth, and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the accused to five years less pre-trial custody, finding that while the offence was serious and warranted substantial denunciation and deterrence, the accused's age, early guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and good rehabilitation prospects, combined with his secondary role in the violence, distinguished the case from more serious home invasion precedents.

The court found J.A.S.G. guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault against his estranged spouse, following a trial in which the complainant was the sole witness.

The decision reviews the legal principles of credibility, consent, and the assessment of evidence in sexual assault cases, and applies them to the facts as found.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Silvano Lochner of criminal harassment under s. 264(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with police officer Douglas Letsche and his family members over a period spanning from 2022 to 2024.

The communications, primarily emails, related to an incident from 2006 involving the tasering of Lochner’s disabled brother during the execution of a Feeney warrant.

Despite the absence of overt threats, the court found that the volume, persistence, and personal nature of the emails, especially those sent to Letsche’s brother-in-law in March 2024 referencing personal family information, caused Letsche to reasonably fear for his safety and that of his family.

The court emphasized the defendant’s recklessness in continuing communications despite clear indications that contact was unwelcome and the escalation in targeting family members.

The applicant sought a variation of his judicial interim release terms, specifically to add his wife as a surety and delete the non-contact term related to her.

This application was based on an alleged material change in circumstances, primarily the withdrawal of a previous assault charge against his wife.

The Crown opposed, citing a new, albeit unproven, assault allegation involving the wife.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the wife's consistent denial of the alleged assaults and the circumstantial nature of the Crown's case on the new charge.

The application was allowed, modifying the bail conditions to include the wife as an additional surety, remove the non-contact term, increase one surety's pledge, and maintain house arrest and a driving prohibition.

The applicant brought a motion alleging a breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant faced charges of impaired driving and driving while over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood dating to November 2014.

He was convicted after a one-day trial in November 2015, but that conviction was set aside on appeal in June 2017 and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought a stay of charges, arguing that the delay in bringing him to retrial breached his constitutional rights.

The court found that the Crown failed to expedite the retrial process despite clear appellate direction to do so and despite the post-Jordan framework requiring timely resolution of cases.

The court granted the stay of charges.