Tony Paas

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Dylan Victor McCormack-Woolacoot after he pled guilty to ten charges involving repeated low-level offences and assaults over an eighteen-month period, committed while breaching multiple court orders.

The key issue was the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, with the defence seeking enhanced Summers credit (1.5:1) and the Crown opposing based on a recent trial decision denying such credit due to reoffending while on bail.

The court rejected the Crown’s reliance on R. v. Jeyakanthan, finding it unpersuasive and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and awarded 1.5:1 credit for all pre-sentence custody.

The global sentence imposed was 460 days, reflecting aggravating and mitigating factors, with probation and ancillary orders.

The defendant, Li Kai Li, was arraigned on charges of attempted murder (x2) and assault.

The defence admitted the acts but sought a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Li with schizophrenia, exacerbated by cannabis use, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally or legally wrong.

The court accepted the expert's findings, declared Mr. Li not criminally responsible for the offences, and deferred his initial disposition to the Ontario Review Board, ordering him to remain in custody during that process.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace following charges related to a loaded firearm found in her car.

The applicant argued errors in the initial decision and a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan.

The Crown conceded the pandemic as a material change, allowing a de novo assessment.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the seriousness of the current charges (including being in breach of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence), and the inadequacy of the proposed surety and release plan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her onus on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and that releasing her would undermine confidence in the administration of justice, even considering the pandemic.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against his stepbrother following a three-day trial.

The Crown sought 90 days incarceration followed by two years probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a non-custodial sentence or alternatively a 90-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence served in the community, followed by two years probation with conditions including house arrest, counselling, community service, and a no-contact order.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, stable family support, and the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence, while still achieving denunciation and deterrence through the conditions imposed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a minor complainant over a period of approximately one year.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant and his younger sister, both under 18 years old, supported by video-recorded statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, noting the plausibility of the evidence, corroboration from the sister's testimony, and internal consistency with the narrative.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, though the court could not establish that the touching commenced prior to the complainant's sixteenth birthday.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited by court order.

The offences occurred when the defendant, on bail with weapons prohibitions and a curfew, was found in a downtown Toronto bar with a loaded .45 calibre semi-automatic handgun.

Upon arrest, the defendant struggled with police and moved his hands toward the weapon.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 years with credit for pre-trial detention and house arrest.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 1.5 years after applying credit for 300 days of pre-trial custody and 65 days of house arrest, finding the conduct constituted truly criminal conduct posing a real and immediate danger to the public.

Tofarri Wright was found guilty of four counts related to firearm possession, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the public nature of the possession and the loaded status of the weapon, and mitigating factors including his youth, lack of prior record, strong community support, and personal tragedies including being a victim of gun violence himself.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearm offences but also rehabilitation for a youthful first offender.

The final sentence was 22 months in reformatory on Count 1 and one year concurrent on Count 4, followed by two years' probation, after credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

Counts 2 and 3 were stayed under the rule against multiple convictions.

Following conviction for criminal harassment and multiple breaches of probation, the Crown applied under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an assessment to determine whether the offender should be designated a dangerous offender or long‑term offender.

The respondent argued that the predicate offence was not a serious personal injury offence because no physical violence occurred.

The court held that the circumstances of the harassment — including threatening sexual conduct and pursuit of the complainant — constituted conduct likely to inflict severe psychological damage under s. 752(a)(ii).

Given the offender’s extensive criminal record, including numerous violent, sexual, and breach-related convictions, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous or long‑term offender.

The application for a 60‑day assessment was granted.