Valerie Culp

The accused was charged with attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to wound following an armed robbery of a cellular wireless store where the owner was shot in the neck.

The accused pleaded guilty to several related charges but contested the intent required for the remaining two charges, claiming the handgun discharged accidentally.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible but found reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, resulting in an acquittal for attempted murder.

However, the court found the accused guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, concluding that intentionally firing a loaded handgun at the victim's upper body from close range proved the requisite intent.

The accused, an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre, was charged with aggravated assault after attacking another inmate in a protective custody unit.

The incident was captured on security cameras.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, alleging the complainant had threatened him and made a 'gun' gesture.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by the video footage, which showed the accused as the unprovoked aggressor.

The court concluded the accused's actions were not reasonable in the circumstances and found him guilty of aggravated assault.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total time from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was over 38 months.

However, the accused had left Canada for over 10 months before being arrested.

The court held that the pre-arrest period did not engage s. 11(b) interests as the accused was unaware of the charges, or alternatively, it constituted a discrete event exceptional circumstance.

The remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness due to defence delay, including allowing his Legal Aid certificate to lapse.

The application was dismissed.

In a murder trial involving a young person, the defence brought a Scopelliti motion seeking to introduce images recovered from the deceased’s cellphone memory card to suggest a violent disposition and support a claim of self‑defence.

The proposed evidence consisted of photographs of firearms, knives, cash, marijuana, and aggressive slogans whose origin and authorship were unknown.

The court applied the governing principles from Scopelliti and subsequent authorities and concluded that the images had minimal probative value and did not demonstrate prior acts of violence or a disposition to carry weapons.

Any limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect, risk of improper reasoning about the deceased’s character, and the potential to distract the jury with collateral issues.

The evidence was therefore ruled inadmissible.

The offender was sentenced after convictions for dangerous driving and two counts of failing to remain at the scene of an accident under the Criminal Code.

The offences arose from a collision in which the offender struck two pedestrians and fled the scene, causing serious and lasting physical and psychological injuries to the victims.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives for serious driving offences involving harm and failure to remain.

Aggravating factors included the severe and ongoing harm to the victims, the offender’s continued dangerous driving while fleeing, his failure to report the accident, lack of remorse, and an extensive driving record.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 24 months less a day, followed by probation and ancillary orders.

The accused, a young person charged with first degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement on a voir dire.

The court considered whether the police were required to comply with s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and whether the statement was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The court held that s. 146 was not triggered because the accused was neither arrested nor detained and the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe he had committed the offence at the time of the interview.

The interview circumstances did not involve inducements, oppression, lack of an operating mind, or improper trickery, and the rudimentary cautions given were sufficient in the circumstances.

The Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was ruled admissible at trial.

The accused was charged with failing to stop at the scene of an accident and dangerous driving after his vehicle struck two pedestrians crossing the street.

The accused claimed he did not see the pedestrians or hear the impact, and fled the scene unaware of the collision.

The court rejected his evidence, finding he had actual knowledge of the collision and fled to escape liability.

The court also found his driving, which included edging into an intersection on a red light and driving too closely to visible pedestrians, constituted a marked departure from the standard of a prudent driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Sentencing decision following a jury conviction for fraud over $5,000 arising from a long‑running mortgage investment Ponzi scheme that defrauded 33 victims of more than $7.5 million.

The offender solicited investments through misleading promotional materials and used investor funds primarily to pay earlier investors and finance personal expenses and an affluent lifestyle.

Many victims were elderly retirees who suffered devastating financial and psychological consequences.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large‑scale fraud involving breach of trust.

A seven‑year penitentiary sentence was imposed before credit, with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody reducing the custodial term to three years, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture equal to the fraud amount.