Uma Kancharla

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, two counts of robbery, and two counts of administering a noxious substance.

The Crown also presented facts regarding three additional robberies to which the offender acknowledged his role.

The offender committed a series of carjackings targeting luxury vehicles at shopping centres and residential areas, using weapons and pepper spray against victims.

The court rejected a joint submission of two years imprisonment as manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences, the offender's moral culpability, and the harm caused to victims.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, with a three-year sentence on the armed robbery count and concurrent two-year sentences on the other robbery counts, after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on June 14, 2024, when he carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint on Parliament Street in Toronto while on a house arrest release order for an attempted murder charge.

The accused threatened the driver with a firearm (though none was found), forced him from the vehicle, and fled in the stolen car, colliding with other vehicles before abandonment.

The court imposed a suspended sentence of 669 days with 3 years probation, accounting for the accused's youth as a first offender, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to carjacking offences.

Raza Husain applied to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, imposed in 2011 following convictions for sexual assault and procuring.

The application was brought under the new s. 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code, which allows termination if there is no connection between continuing the order and preventing/investigating sexual crimes, or if the impact on the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate either no connection or gross disproportionality, citing the serious nature of the original offences, lack of expert evidence on re-offending risk, and insufficient evidence of disproportionate impact on the applicant's privacy or liberty.

Gurlal Dhillon pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, dangerous driving, and breaching a youth sentence, arising from an armed robbery spree involving multiple vehicle thefts at gunpoint using an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a realistic imitation firearm, the defendant's prior youth sentences, the prevalence of car thefts, and the significant trauma inflicted on victims.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and the defendant's age.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The appellant, Joseph Donnelly, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, which stemmed from two incidents: non-consensual unprotected intercourse and non-consensual penetration with a dildo.

This was his second trial after the first conviction was overturned.

The appeal raised four grounds: errors in handling late forensic disclosure, dismissal of a s. 11(b) Charter application for delay, reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge, and errors in evidence assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on disclosure, delay (calculating net delay at 11 months, 22 days, well within Jordan limits), or judicial impartiality.

The court also upheld the trial judge's credibility assessments and use of common sense, clarifying that a comment about sexual preferences was rooted in the complainant's evidence, not a stereotype.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that he should have a new trial due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.

The appellant alleged that trial counsel failed to properly perfect a section 11(b) Charter application and failed to inform him of his right to testify on the Charter application.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while trial counsel's failure to file transcripts for the section 11(b) application fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice as the trial judge ultimately allowed the application to proceed.

The court also found that the appellant failed to establish that he was not informed of his right to testify, and even if he had been, it would not have changed the outcome given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 30-day sentence for failing to comply with a house arrest condition of his recognizance.

During a bail compliance check, police were informed by the surety and his wife that the appellant was not home, and the appellant did not present himself during the 35-minute visit.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the appellant was not home.

The court also found that the subjective mens rea requirement was met and that the 30-day custodial sentence was fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a jury's guilty verdict for gang sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug, the court delivered reasons for sentencing Gavin MacMillan and Enzo DeJesus Carrasco.

Each offender received a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (seven years for gang sexual assault and two years consecutive for administering a stupefying substance), with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found that the victim never consented to the sexual activity, and the offenders had no mistaken belief of consent, rejecting their characterization of events as consensual BDSM.

Ancillary orders included DNA, lifetime prohibition, 20-year SOIRA, and non-communication.

Muhammad Asif was found guilty by a jury of ten offences, including possession of property obtained by crime, three counts of robbery, robbery using a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, and four counts of wearing a disguise.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The offences involved a stolen SUV, a technology store robbery, two gas station robberies, and an RBC bank robbery where a loaded sawed-off shotgun accidentally discharged.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, planned nature of crimes, use of weapons, and commission while serving an intermittent sentence.

Mitigating factors included relative youth and eventual acknowledgment of responsibility.

The Crown sought 12 years, defence sought 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of nine years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with bail conditions requiring him to reside at a specified address in Kleinburg and remain within that residence at all times unless in the presence of his surety or attending court on a specific matter in Scarborough.

Police attended the residence to conduct a bail compliance check and were informed by the surety and his wife that the accused was not present.

The accused did not present himself during the half-hour visit.

The defence conceded the Crown proved the bail conditions and identification but argued the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not in the residence.

The court found the Crown proved guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in breach of his recognizance.

The Crown brought an application during a trial for gang sexual assault to admit the expert testimony of an emergency room physician and a sexual assault nurse-examiner.

The proposed evidence concerned the effects of alcohol and drugs on the complainant's consciousness and capacity to consent, as well as the interpretation of her physical injuries.

The accused opposed the physician's evidence, arguing she lacked toxicological expertise and was biased due to her advocacy for sexual assault survivors.

The court admitted the evidence, finding it relevant, necessary, and reliable, and held that the physician's social media posts did not demonstrate an inability to provide impartial evidence.

The accused, charged with gang sexual assault and other offences, brought applications under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual comments, gestures, and interest in a sex club to support their defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding the prior sexual comments and gestures, finding the evidence irrelevant and based on prohibited twin-myth reasoning.

The court permitted limited evidence regarding discussions about attending a sex club solely to provide context for a text message sent by one of the accused, with strict instructions against using it to infer consent.

Evidence of conversations immediately prior to the sexual encounters was ruled admissible.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion arguing that recent amendments to the Criminal Code eliminating peremptory challenges in jury selection should not apply retrospectively to their trial.

The court applied the rule of coordinate jurisdiction, noting that two other Ontario Superior Court judges had already ruled the amendments were procedural and applied retrospectively.

Finding no cogent reason to depart from those decisions, the court dismissed the application and ordered jury selection to proceed under the amended procedure.

The Crown sought to admit a post-arrest statement made by the accused, who was charged with multiple sexual offences.

The accused challenged the voluntariness of the statement, arguing that his English comprehension was insufficient and that the police caution regarding his right to silence was inadequate.

The court found that the accused's English skills were reasonably sophisticated and that the police officer went to great lengths to ensure the accused understood his right to silence.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused, a young person, was on trial for first-degree murder.

This decision provides reasons for the judge's instructions to the jury regarding the use of post-incident conduct evidence.

The Crown sought to use this evidence for all elements of the offence, including planning, deliberation, and intent to kill.

The defence argued for a "no probative value" instruction.

The court ruled that post-incident conduct was not relevant to the shooters' intent to kill or whether the murder was planned and deliberate, citing risks of speculation and inferring intent.

However, the court found the evidence relevant to whether the accused aided the shooters in carrying out their plan and the accused's knowledge of the plan, particularly regarding flight and disposal of weapons.

A young person, A.D., charged with first-degree murder, brought a voir dire application to determine the admissibility of two statements: a conversation with his mother and an interview with Cst.

Irwin.

The court ruled that the conversation with his mother was a privileged consultation under section 146(2)(b)(iii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and was inadmissible for any purpose.

The statement to Cst.

Irwin was found to be voluntary and admissible for cross-examination, with a specific portion excluded due to concerns about threats or inducements related to sentencing.

The court emphasized the enhanced procedural protections for young persons and the privacy of consultations with parents.

Hakeem Mohamed was charged with firearms offences after photos allegedly showed him holding a Glock handgun, which was later seized from a co-accused.

Initial charges of sexual assault and human trafficking were dismissed.

The trial focused on whether the object in the photos was a restricted firearm, if Mohamed possessed it with the requisite knowledge, and whether he carried it for a purpose dangerous to public peace.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the object was a real restricted firearm or that Mohamed knew it was, or that he carried it for a dangerous purpose.

Consequently, Mohamed was acquitted on all remaining firearms charges.

The defendant, Hakeem Mohamed, objected to the late disclosure of enhanced photographs by the Crown during his firearms trial.

The court considered the principles of late disclosure under s. 7 and s. 24(1) of the Charter, as well as the general exclusionary discretion.

The court found a s. 7 Charter breach due to actual prejudice to the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, exacerbated by his in-custody status and the significant adjournment required.

The court also found that the introduction of the evidence would involve an inordinate amount of time not commensurate with its value.

Consequently, the enhanced photographs were excluded from evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the defendant, Hakeem Mohamed, to police, while Mohamed sought to exclude it on grounds of involuntariness and Charter breaches (s. 10(a) and 10(b)).

The court found that police comments constituted an implied threat, rendering part of the statement involuntary.

Additionally, the police failed to inform Mohamed of his full jeopardy regarding potential firearm charges, breaching his s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that the entire statement should be excluded from evidence.

The defendant, Dean Richer-Lebreton, was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to six years imprisonment, less 654 days pre-sentence custody (rounded to 22 months), resulting in a net sentence of 4 years and 2 months.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the severe impact on the victim.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, finding the offender to be a dangerous, incorrigible recidivist unlikely to be granted early release.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample, and no contact with the victim during the custodial portion of the sentence.