T. Vogel

The accused was charged with assaulting three of his young children with a belt and a wire/cable, assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement.

The charges arose amidst a highly acrimonious custody dispute with the children's mother.

The defence sought to introduce the children's prior statements from an unrelated, unfounded sexual assault investigation to argue they were prone to collusion and influence.

The court admitted the statements but gave them little weight.

Relying on the children's video-recorded police statements, their trial testimony, and corroborating medical evidence of patterned injuries, the court found the accused guilty of the assault charges.

The court acquitted the accused of forcible confinement due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the child's delayed disclosure.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, breach of a weapons prohibition, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed that the appropriate sentence before pre-sentence custody credit was seven years.

The court considered the exceptionally harsh conditions of the offender's pre-sentence custody, including frequent lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Applying the principles from Duncan and Marshall, the court reduced the otherwise appropriate sentence by two years to account for these harsh conditions, resulting in a five-year sentence.

After applying enhanced credit for time served, the offender was sentenced to 98 days going forward.

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a dangerous offender following his convictions for two counts of attempted murder with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and failing to comply with a prohibition order.

The court reviewed the respondent's extensive criminal record, institutional misconduct, gang affiliation, and psychiatric assessments.

Finding that the respondent met the criteria for a dangerous offender due to a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences of his actions, the court declared him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The applicant, who was convicted of attempted murder and other firearm offences, challenged the constitutionality of the dangerous offender provisions in sections 753(1) and 753.01 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the 2008 amendments impermissibly curtailed judicial discretion and were overbroad, violating section 7 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the provisions operate as part of a carefully calibrated scheme to protect the public while maintaining judicial discretion at the penalty phase.

The court found that the provisions are not overbroad and do not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter after being charged with second degree murder in the fatal stabbing of an intimate partner during a domestic argument.

The sentencing judge rejected the offender’s claim that the victim accidentally stabbed himself during a struggle and found that the offender intentionally stabbed the victim in anger during an argument.

Aggravating factors included the domestic relationship, the use of a knife, and the offender’s failure to seek medical assistance for the victim after the stabbing.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, positive rehabilitative efforts while in custody, and difficult personal background.

The court concluded that the moral blameworthiness placed the offence in the upper range of manslaughter cases and imposed a penitentiary sentence of eight years, with credit for pre‑trial custody.

The Crown applied under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether a dangerous offender or long‑term offender application should proceed.

The offender had been convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted murder with a firearm and two counts of discharging a firearm with intent.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal record, including numerous firearm, drug trafficking, and breach offences, and considered the low threshold for ordering an assessment.

Finding reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be designated a dangerous offender due to a pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour involving firearms and drug trafficking, the court ordered the assessment.