Tyler Smith

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for causing the death of Kenneth Chopee on January 25, 2023.

The accused discovered his personal property in the victim's possession, became enraged, and attacked the victim with bolt cutters and a knife, inflicting devastating injuries including multiple skull fractures and stab wounds.

The accused did not form the specific intent to kill due to his excessive consumption of fentanyl and benzodiazepines.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 years custody, accounting for harsh pre-trial detention conditions and mistreatment by police following arrest.

The sentence reflects the serious nature of the violent offense while considering the accused's rehabilitative efforts in custody and difficult background.

The Crown sought to declare the defendant a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant opposed, arguing the criteria for dangerous offender were not met, and sought a long-term offender designation instead.

The court found that while the defendant had committed serious personal injury offences and exhibited a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable." The court designated the defendant a long-term offender under s. 753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, imposing a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (with credit for time served, leaving 113 days remaining) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The defendant, George Andrews, was charged with five counts, including assault with a weapon (motor vehicle), dangerous operation of a conveyance, mischief over $5,000, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought to prove identity through a Nikolovski application, relying on surveillance video and the defendant's tattoos.

The defence argued against compelling the defendant to expose tattoos for identification, citing R. v. Zhou.

The court ruled that it was entitled to observe the defendant's already exposed facial tattoo for identification purposes, distinguishing the case from situations requiring disrobing.

The judge found the facial tattoo matched the video evidence and concluded that the defendant was the culprit, also finding intent for the assault.

The defendant was found guilty on all five charges.

The accused, charged with armed robbery and related offences, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The anticipated delay to the end of trial was 34 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the delay was caused by the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and periods of defence delay.

The court also found that the Crown acted reasonably in refusing to sever the accused's trials.

The accused was tried for two home invasions in Oakville and Scarborough.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily cell phone records, text messages, and videos found on the accused's phone upon arrest.

The court admitted similar fact evidence across the counts, finding striking similarities between the two incidents.

The court also admitted incoming text messages from an unindicted co-conspirator under the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty as a co-principal on all counts, concluding he conspired to commit the robberies, assembled the team, and was present at the scenes.

The offender, a homeless Black man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking another homeless man with a skateboard following a series of altercations.

The victim had directed racial slurs at the offender prior to the assault.

The court considered the offender's background, including the impact of anti-Black racism, childhood abuse, and undiagnosed schizophrenia, as detailed in an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court imposed an effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months, which was reduced to 17 months of further custody and 18 months of probation after accounting for pre-trial custody and harsh conditions.

The accused, charged with home invasion robberies, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 8 and s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from his cellular telephone.

The police had seized the phone upon arrest and extracted its raw data without a warrant, later obtaining a search warrant to review the data.

The court found that the warrantless extraction of raw data violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, rejecting the Crown's argument that it was authorized under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was minimal and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, on trial for multiple offences including sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, brought a motion for a directed verdict on three counts at the close of the Crown's case.

The court applied the Sheppard test to determine if there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict.

The court found no evidence supporting the sexual intent or use of a weapon during the specific acts alleged in Counts 1 and 2, amending them to lesser included offences.

However, the court found sufficient evidence of coercive restraint to leave the unlawful confinement charge (Count 5) to the jury.

The motion was granted in part.

Zion Lewis, a 20-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the inherent danger of the weapon and its possession after a car accident, and mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty plea, strong rehabilitative prospects, supportive family, harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including contracting COVID-19), and experiences with anti-Black racism.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also rehabilitation, particularly for youthful first offenders, and the relevance of social context evidence to moral blameworthiness.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in 106 days remaining to be served, followed by 2 years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA databank order.

This preliminary inquiry addressed charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking against three accused.

The Crown sought to admit evidence via a s.540(7) application, primarily relying on police notebook notes.

The court found significant issues with the admissibility and trustworthiness of much of the Crown's evidence, particularly hearsay statements within officer notes, which prevented the defence from cross-examining critical witnesses.

While some drug trafficking activity was inferred, the court found insufficient evidence to establish constructive possession for most charges against Bogdan Butean and Justin David Gurley.

Natalie Tovah Abuhav was committed to stand trial only on the charge of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Percocet, as her identification was found with those specific drugs.

The other charges against her, and all charges against Butean and Gurley, were not committed for trial due to lack of sufficient evidence for committal.

The accused was convicted of five criminal offences, including possession of a stolen van, stolen firearms, and driving offences following a police chase.

During arrest, the accused was shot and sustained severe, unhealed injuries leading to significant disability.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration risk and the accused's serious injuries and chaotic childhood.

The court ultimately imposed a suspended sentence and two years' probation, giving credit for pre-trial custody and the severe injury sustained during arrest, finding no further benefit in incarceration.

Randi Wasylyk was charged with unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Daniel Green discharged a firearm and then placed the weapon in Wasylyk's satchel shortly before their arrest.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and trial.

The central issues were whether Wasylyk knew about the firearm or was wilfully blind to its presence, and whether she intended to possess it to assist Green in evading police.

The court found the defence's evidence plausible and consistent, raising a reasonable doubt regarding Wasylyk's knowledge and intent to possess the firearm.

Consequently, Wasylyk was found not guilty on all counts.

Randi Wasylyk, charged with firearm offences, applied to exclude a firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 and 9, as the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful based on reasonable grounds.

However, the court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to delayed notification of arrest reasons and unreasonable delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that despite the seriousness of the Charter breaches, the reliable nature of the firearm evidence and society's strong interest in prosecuting firearm offences meant its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the firearm was deemed admissible.

The accused, charged with multiple offences including assault and using an imitation firearm, moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on three charges at the close of the Crown's case.

The court granted the motion regarding the assault on Natasha Fridgant due to a lack of evidence, as she failed to adopt her preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the imitation firearm charge, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to potentially convict the accused as a party to the offence under s. 21(1) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with three counts of trafficking in heroin and three counts of trafficking in fentanyl arising from three separate drug transactions in August 2016.

The accused admitted to facilitating the sale of heroin but disputed knowingly or intentionally trafficking in fentanyl.

The court found that while the Crown need not prove knowledge of the exact narcotic to secure a conviction for trafficking, the Crown must prove the mental element required for each specific offence.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court held that convicting on both heroin and fentanyl trafficking counts for the same single act constituted an abuse of process.

The court stayed the fentanyl counts and convicted on the heroin counts, while noting the presence of fentanyl as an aggravating factor for sentencing.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including drug trafficking, acts of violence, and motive.

The court endorsed agreements between the parties allowing evidence of the accused's drug trafficking to provide narrative context, and allowing witnesses to state they feared the accused without detailing specific prior violent acts.

The court also ruled that the Crown could lead evidence of the accused's motive—specifically that he killed the deceased in retaliation for a prior assault by the deceased's close associate—finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

The accused, Mauro Granados-Arana, facing a first-degree murder charge, challenged the admissibility of certain crime scene and autopsy photographs that the Crown sought to tender into evidence.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, noting that modern juries are less easily inflamed by graphic images.

The court found that crime scene photographs were admissible without objection.

For autopsy photographs, the court ruled that photographs depicting defensive hand injuries and head/shoulder injuries were admissible.

Their significant probative value in illustrating the nature and extent of injuries, the degree of force used, the perpetrator's intent, and corroborating expert opinion outweighed their potential prejudicial effect, especially given their black and white presentation.

The application to exclude the photographs was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against his ex-wife.

The offence occurred when the accused attacked his ex-wife with a 25-inch serrated machete-type knife after she began packing her belongings to leave the family home.

The victim suffered multiple lacerations and abrasions requiring stitches, primarily to her hands, arms, head, and neck.

The court imposed a sentence of 610 days (approximately 20 months), less 254 days credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in approximately one year of incarceration, plus three years probation with conditions including anger management and domestic violence counselling, a weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The Crown brought an application to remove the defendant's counsel of choice, Tyler Smith, on the basis of a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Smith had previously represented both the defendant and a material Crown witness, Karri Dymond, in an unrelated criminal harassment matter in 2011.

The court granted the application in part, implementing a partial disqualification model whereby Smith was excluded from the courtroom during Dymond's testimony and prohibited from conducting her cross-examination, with independent counsel Peter Bawden conducting the cross-examination instead.

The court balanced the defendant's constitutional right to counsel of choice against concerns regarding the administration of justice and public perception of the criminal justice system.

During a criminal prosecution for an armed armoured truck robbery, the Crown sought to introduce a videotaped confession made by the accused during a police interview.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary and obtained in violation of Charter rights, including the right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The court found that an unrecorded pre‑interview confrontation with police evidence created an atmosphere of oppression that induced the confession, rendering it involuntary under the confessions rule.

Although the court rejected allegations of physical assault and found no breach of the right to counsel of choice, the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

The statement was excluded from evidence, likely resulting in an acquittal.