Uma Kancharla

The accused, charged jointly with sexual assault, applied to exclude evidence referencing a third man who was allegedly present during the offence but whose charges were withdrawn.

The applicant argued the evidence would cause moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the evidence—such as explaining the complainant's narrative, the police investigation, and the DNA results—significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also noted it would be impractical to excise the references and that any prejudice could be addressed through jury instructions.

The offender, a 20-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted murder and firearms offences after shooting two individuals inside a vehicle.

Following a Gardiner hearing, the court found the offender intended to kill both victims and was armed when he entered the vehicle.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm in a public place, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, punitive bail conditions, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The offender was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years, 10 months, and 23 days after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a continuation of the Detention Order was necessary and appropriate.

The Board accepted the joint position, noting the accused's progress and compliance with treatment, and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit with provisions for travel passes.

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.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Cannabis Use Disorder, as well as his developing insight and recent breaches of no-contact orders.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the hospital, with privileges up to and including community living in approved accommodations with reporting requirements.

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.

The five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

In a criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court considered whether the accused committed sexual assault during a paid sexual encounter by removing or not maintaining a condom despite an express condition of consent and by using a strap-on dildo without the complainant's consent.

Applying the W(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and accepted the complainant's evidence in its entirety.

The court held that the complainant's acquiescent 'Okay' in the circumstances did not amount to actual consent and that condom use was a condition precedent to consent to intercourse.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The Crown sought to admit expert opinion evidence from a forensic scientist regarding DNA and body fluid analysis.

The court admitted the expert evidence, finding it met the Mohan criteria and the White Burgess balancing test.

Subsequently, the accused brought an application to exclude fresh forensic evidence obtained during a trial adjournment, arguing late disclosure impaired his right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court granted the application, excluding the fresh evidence from the Crown's case-in-chief due to the prejudice caused to the accused's cross-examination strategy, though noting the ruling could be revisited if the defence called evidence.

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.

This pre-trial ruling addresses whether the repeal of section 634 of the Criminal Code, which eliminated peremptory challenges in jury selection, operates retrospectively or prospectively.

The accused argued that the amendment affects a substantive right and should apply prospectively, allowing him to exercise peremptory challenges.

The Crown contended it was purely procedural and should apply retrospectively.

The court, acknowledging conflicting judicial opinions, found the elimination of peremptory challenges impacts a substantive right by removing the parties' ability to influence jury composition and enhance confidence in impartiality.

Consequently, the repeal was deemed to operate prospectively, permitting the accused to exercise peremptory challenges as his right vested before the repeal's effective date.

A young offender was convicted of manslaughter for his role as a lookout during a fatal shooting in a fast food restaurant washroom.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while the defence sought a sentence of time served with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied enhanced credit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and sentenced the offender to two years and nine months in closed custody, less time served, followed by two years of probation.