Vanessa Szirmak

The defendant, Aaron Lee, pleaded guilty to attempted robbery, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited.

The offences involved driving a stolen car dangerously, causing a multi-car collision, and then attempting to steal another vehicle.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record, being on release and probation at the time of the offences, and the presence of dangerous drugs in his system.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, expression of remorse, difficult background (including potential Gladue factors), and the challenging conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 18 months, applying a 2-month "Duncan credit" for COVID-19 conditions and a 6-month "Summers credit" for pre-trial custody, resulting in 12 months remaining to be served.

Additional orders included a 2-year probation, a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing the death of a five-year-old child and impaired driving causing bodily harm to the child's parents.

The defendant, a 24-year-old first offender with no criminal record, had consumed alcohol at a Toronto nightclub and drove back to Newmarket with little sleep.

He fell asleep at the wheel on Highway 9, crossed into oncoming traffic at excessive speed, and collided head-on with a vehicle carrying the Gomez family.

The collision killed five-year-old Lux Peyton Gomez and seriously injured her parents.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for the death and four years concurrent for the bodily harm offences, along with a ten-year driving prohibition.

The accused, charged with firearms offences, brought a Charter application challenging the search warrant for his residence.

The warrant was based primarily on information from a confidential informant who stated the accused kept a handgun in his vehicle.

The affiant officer asserted a generalized belief that the accused might transfer the firearm to his home, but omitted a material fact from surveillance that a satchel suspected of containing the firearm was left in the vehicle.

The court found the Information to Obtain lacked sufficient grounds to search the home, resulting in a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court excluded the firearm and ammunition, finding the serious Charter-infringing conduct and impact on privacy outweighed the societal interest in adjudication on the merits.

Dimytri Ingram-Piruzevski pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the fatal stabbing of Keegan Blyth during a drug transaction.

Ingram-Piruzevski, who armed a youth with a lethal weapon, was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, reduced to a net 4 years and 9 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors, including the context of a drug deal, arming a minor, and flight from the scene, against mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, early guilty plea, and cooperation with the police.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items were also imposed.

The accused, Balwinder Dhaliwal, a key member of a criminal organization involved in stealing, re-vinning, and selling motor vehicles, was sentenced following a guilty plea.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the sophisticated nature of the operation, the significant financial value of vehicles involved, multiple victims, and the accused's substantial criminal record for similar offenses.

While the guilty plea was late, it was accepted as a sign of remorse and responsibility, saving court time.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel.

The applicant was charged with two counts of child luring contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code and one count of communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services for consideration from a person believed to be under 18 contrary to section 286.1(2).

Following the Crown's case, the applicant applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alternatively seeking exclusion of his statement to police.

The applicant argued that police misconduct in allowing him to remain in urine-stained clothing for 15 hours constituted conduct so offensive to societal notions of fairness and decency as to warrant a stay.

The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of section 7 and that the police conduct, while not demonstrating ideal courtesy, fell considerably short of the threshold required to establish a Charter violation.

The defendant was found guilty on December 12, 2017 of assault, breaches of recognizance, and criminal harassment.

He was placed on probation with a term prohibiting contact with the complainant.

Between December 25 and 27, 2017, the defendant sent the complainant a lengthy email and text messages in breach of the probation order.

The defendant was charged with three counts of breach of probation and one count of criminal harassment.

At trial, the defendant was self-represented and argued that his mental state and depression prevented him from forming the necessary mens rea.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, rejecting his evidence as unreliable and finding that he intentionally breached the probation order and engaged in conduct that caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's only witness, a police officer, testified that he read the accused an approved instrument demand under s. 254(3) rather than the required approved screening device demand under s. 254(2)(b).

The defence conceded all elements of the offence except whether a proper demand was made.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that a proper demand was made and acquitted the accused.

The defendant applied under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual history at trial for a sexual assault charge.

The defendant sought to introduce evidence of prior consensual physical contact between the parties to rebut the complainant's anticipated testimony that they had no previous "relationship" or sexual contact, and to provide context regarding the nature of their relationship.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible for purposes of narrative context, consent, and credibility assessment, as it did not engage the "twin myths" prohibited by section 276(1) and was necessary for the defendant's full answer and defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and simple assault committed against his former domestic partner in her home on multiple occasions between March and July 2016.

The accused also pleaded guilty to breaching a section 810.2 recognizance by failing to keep the peace and be of good behavior, and by failing to report as required.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years and 11 months prior to credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 701 days to serve.

The sentencing emphasized the serious nature of domestic violence, the accused's extensive criminal history including prior violent offences, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The accused was convicted at trial of three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

While providing hair salon services, he touched the breasts of three female customers on separate occasions, with the touching being deliberate and repeated, and in one case occurring under the victim's bra.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 4 to 6 months followed by probation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing the accused's status as a permanent resident and potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by two years of probation with restrictive conditions, finding that incarceration was necessary to meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence despite the accused's lack of criminal record and stable employment.

The accused, a salon owner, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against three separate female clients who alleged he repeatedly touched their breasts in a sexual manner while cutting or dyeing their hair.

The Crown alleged the repeated touching, manner of contact, accused's statements, and multiple independent complaints proved sexual assault.

The defence contended the complaints were fabrications and any contact was unintentional and non-sexual.

The court found all three complainants credible and reliable witnesses whose evidence was internally consistent, logically progressive, and corroborated by external circumstances.

The accused's testimony was found to be not credible, internally inconsistent, and implausible given his claimed lack of memory regarding dramatic events.

The court found the similar fact evidence admissible and probative, establishing a clear pattern of intentional sexual assault.

The Crown proved all three charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop for driving without lights.

The defendant, a native Russian speaker with conversational English ability, challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing he was denied his Charter rights to counsel due to language barriers.

The arresting officer initially recognized language issues and called for a Russian-speaking officer, but subsequently decided not to use interpretation services.

The court found a serious breach of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights, as he was not meaningfully informed of his right to counsel and his subsequent request for legal advice was ignored.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court excluded the breath test evidence and acquitted the defendant.