Thompson Ernest Hamilton

The accused, Mark Aninon, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The court found him not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, for both offences.

The decision was based on an agreed statement of facts establishing the actus reus and expert psychiatric evidence confirming that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board for disposition, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration in the NCR regime.

Hesam Dowran pleaded guilty to two counts of voyeurism for making surreptitious video recordings for a sexual purpose.

The incidents involved filming a 16-year-old in a public mall and an unidentified nude woman who was a tenant in his Airbnb.

Police found numerous other voyeuristic videos on his devices.

The Crown sought eight months custody and three years probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the repeated and predatory nature of the conduct, the victim's age, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, no prior record, remorse, and significant counselling.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the seriousness and extent of the offences.

Dowran was sentenced to four months custody and two years probation.

Nima Tork pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and failing to stop after an accident causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the intentional use of a vehicle as a weapon and the significant injuries to the victim, and the mitigating factors, such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.

The judge determined that a conditional sentence would not adequately address denunciation and general deterrence, imposing a nine-month period of incarceration for aggravated assault and six months concurrently for failing to stop, followed by two years probation, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a three-year driving prohibition.

The accused was found guilty of impaired operation and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit after a vehicle collision.

The court addressed three main issues: whether the Crown proved operation, whether the accused's statements to police were voluntary, and whether the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated.

The court found no s. 10(b) breach, determined the statements were voluntary, and concluded that operation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on both the accused's admission and strong circumstantial evidence.

The accused was found highly intoxicated in the driver's seat of his vehicle at a shopping plaza.

He was arrested for impaired driving and care or control of a motor vehicle.

The Crown proved that the accused's blood alcohol concentration was between 220 and 316 mgs/100ml.

The defence raised Charter breaches regarding the adequacy of the reasons for arrest and challenged whether the accused was in care or control of the vehicle, arguing there was an alternate plan for pickup.

The court found no Charter breaches and determined the accused was in care or control of the vehicle.

The accused was convicted on both counts, with the Over 80 count stayed.

The accused was charged with six offences under the Criminal Code related to online child exploitation following his arrest at a hotel in Markham.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the person he was dealing with was under 16 years of age.

The accused testified that he was confused due to multiple simultaneous conversations, phone technical problems, and message deletions.

The court found the accused's testimony generally not credible but determined that on the whole of the evidence, the accused's explanation that he confused conversations was reasonably possible, leaving a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL of blood (Over 80).

The Crown proved the reliability of breath test readings and the elements of the Over 80 offence.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the traffic stop, arrest, searches, and right to counsel advice under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act based on the officer's observation of an unusual noise from the vehicle, its identification as a BMW with front-end damage, and the recent hit-and-run incident involving a similar vehicle in the area.

The arrest for driving while suspended was lawful and not arbitrary.

Searches incident to arrest were properly limited and authorized by law.

While minor breaches of section 10(b) rights occurred, they did not warrant exclusion of the breath test evidence.

The court found the accused guilty.

The appellant was convicted at trial of failing to yield to oncoming traffic contrary to section 139 of the Highway Traffic Act after his vehicle was struck by a motorcycle while turning left from a company driveway.

The appellant appealed on grounds of misapprehension of evidence, failure to properly determine the actus reus before considering due diligence, and failure to apply the reasonable doubt standard.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial court's findings of fact were reasonably supported by the evidence and that the appellant failed to establish due diligence on the balance of probabilities.

The Crown sought to admit surveillance video evidence of an incident involving the accused, who was charged with care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The defence objected to the admissibility of the video on the grounds that no representative from the business that maintained the surveillance system was called to authenticate the copy, and that there was no evidence the video had not been altered.

The court ruled the video admissible, finding that circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimony from police officers and in-car videos established the accuracy and integrity of the surveillance recording on a balance of probabilities.