Tonya Kent

The accused was charged with 23 offences arising from four armed robberies at gunpoint and firearm possession charges.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of each robbery as similar act evidence to establish identity.

The court admitted the similar act evidence, finding striking similarities across all four robberies including the use of the same firearm, vehicle, clothing, and modus operandi.

The court convicted the accused of three counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, four counts of pointing a firearm, four counts of disguising face with intent to commit indictable offence, four counts of possessing a weapon for purpose of committing criminal offence, four counts of breaching a release order, and three firearm possession offences.

The court sentenced Telique Ricketts for manslaughter with a firearm, following a guilty plea entered mid-trial for the killing of Adrian Richardson during a planned home invasion and robbery.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant case law, ultimately imposing a sentence of 11 years, reduced to 6 years and 146 days after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Antony Muchemi, faced a judicial interim release hearing where the Crown sought preventative detention on secondary grounds due to numerous alleged offences and a reverse onus position.

The court considered the accused's background, the nature of the allegations, and the conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Despite the Crown's concerns, the court found that a preventative detention order was not appropriate, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the principle of restraint, and the accused's vulnerable circumstances (homelessness, potential mental health issues, and lack of criminal record).

The court determined that a release plan with conditions could reduce the risk to a tolerable level, thereby releasing the accused.

This decision concerns the sentencing of J.B., a young Black male, for serious offences stemming from a pharmacy robbery.

The court applied principles from the Youth Criminal Justice Act and general sentencing principles, with a particular focus on the impact of anti-Black racism and the role of Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports (EPSRs).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness of the offence and harm to victims, alongside mitigating factors including J.B.'s troubled upbringing, exposure to systemic racism, and his newfound role as a father.

Despite the Crown seeking a custodial sentence, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of 24 months probation with various conditions, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration while acknowledging the systemic barriers faced by racialized individuals.

The accused, charged with child pornography offences and breach of a conditional sentence, applied for release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, given the accused's significant criminal record for similar offences, the substantial likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was ordered.

The applicant sought a detention review, arguing material changes in circumstances and errors by prior courts regarding his release plan and Gladue factors.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, upholding the prior decisions that continued detention was justified on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's history of re-offending, particularly driving while disqualified, and the proposed release plan's inability to mitigate public safety risk.

The court also addressed the application of Gladue factors, concluding that while systemic factors were present, the proposed plan did not sufficiently address the risk to public safety.

The accused, Alaelddein Alhajsalem, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to a 17-day delay in his bail hearing, arguing a violation of sections 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded a breach of section 11(e) but argued against a stay.

The court found the delay was caused by systemic issues in the Newmarket Bail Court, not related to the pandemic, and that a judicial admonition or sentence reduction would be inadequate.

Balancing the seriousness of the charges against the persistent systemic problem and the flagrant Charter breach, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

Timothy Clarke Anthony applied for bail review and detention review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

He faced multiple charges, including criminal negligence causing death and numerous counts of driving while disqualified, with a significant criminal record involving breaches of court orders.

The application argued errors in law by the Justice of the Peace, a material change in circumstances with a new release plan and sureties, and unreasonable delay.

The court found no errors in the original decision, determined the new release plan did not constitute a material change sufficient to mitigate the high risk of re-offending, and concluded that the delay was not unreasonable under the Jordan framework.

The application was dismissed, and detention was warranted due to the compelling risk of re-offending.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter pursuant to R. v. Garofoli.

Police obtained a warrant to search a residence and vehicle based on information from a confidential informant that the applicant was trafficking in drugs, corroborated by an undercover drug purchase and police investigation.

The applicant argued the warrant was insufficient because the informant was wrong about the vehicle used and the connection to the residence was weak.

The court upheld the warrant, finding that the police investigation provided sufficient corroboration of the informant's tip and that reasonable inferences could be drawn establishing a nexus between the applicant and the residence where drugs could be found.

Shanice Waldron was found guilty by a jury of importing 2.753 kg of cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record for identity fraud, and mitigating factors such as her youth, status as a single mother, strong rehabilitation prospects, and a history of sexual abuse leading to vulnerability.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence proposed a range of five and a half to six and a half years.

The court imposed a sentence of six and a half years of incarceration, along with a mandatory 10-year firearms prohibition, a lifetime prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order.

The court specifically found that the presence of her young son during the offence was not an aggravating factor.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness residing in Saanich, British Columbia to testify via video link pursuant to section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence regarding the witness's personal circumstances, the costs of attendance, the technology to be used, and practical logistics such as document presentation and examination site integrity.

The court held that while section 714.1 provides a valuable mechanism to reduce witness attendance costs, it requires a proper evidentiary foundation and balancing of statutory and common law factors.