Victoria Ann Di Iorio

The offender pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a computer, mischief to data, and failing to comply with a release order after hacking and defacing the Texas GOP website and distributing 180 GB of stolen data.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of a sophisticated, large-scale cyber attack targeting a political organization against mitigating factors including the offender's lack of a prior record, guilty pleas, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 18 months was imposed, reduced to 175 days to serve after credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused, O.W., was charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in connection with a fatal shooting.

The Crown’s case was entirely circumstantial, relying on evidence of means, opportunity, motive, and post-offence celebratory conduct.

The central issue was the identity of the second shooter.

The court found significant gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly regarding motive and animus, and concluded that the Crown had not proven O.W.’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

O.W. was acquitted on both counts.

The court considered a Crown application to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased to a friend, Rebecca Guindon, identifying O.W. as the perpetrator of a prior shooting, in a trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability to be admitted for their truth under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court also rejected their admissibility under the "state of mind" exception, finding the statements incapable of supporting the inferences the Crown sought regarding motive or animosity between the deceased and O.W.

The court considered the admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence in a judge-alone trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence that the accused, O.W., threatened the deceased with a firearm on Instagram Live hours before the homicide, and a video showing O.W. associating with J.A. (the co-accused) who brandished a handgun.

The court found both pieces of evidence highly probative to issues of motive, animus, intent, and identification, and held that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, especially given the reduced risk of prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The application to admit the evidence was granted.

This decision sets the period of parole ineligibility for Godfrey Sig-od, convicted of first-degree murder of his ex-wife and second-degree murder of his daughter.

The court reviews the facts, the character of the offender, the circumstances of the offence, the recommendations of the jury, and relevant case law.

The court imposes life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for the first-degree murder and life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for 18 years for the second-degree murder, emphasizing the gravity of the offence, breach of trust, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The decision concerns the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Elvie Sig-od and Angelica Sig-od, in the prosecution of Godfrey Sig-od for their murders.

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court utterances and statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, arguing necessity and reliability.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the statements, the relationship history, and the legal standards for necessity and threshold reliability, ultimately admitting the statements with some exclusions for prejudicial content.

This decision involves the sexual assault trial of Sharmake Sheikh, who was charged with one count of sexual assault against C.N. The case hinged on conflicting accounts of the events that occurred after the parties met at an after-hours club in Toronto.

The complainant testified to non-consensual sexual contact in a cab and outside an apartment building, supported by video evidence and witness testimony.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual interaction and an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The judge found the complainant credible and the accused evasive, rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

Azara Robertson pleaded guilty to reckless discharge of a prohibited firearm and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including two separate instances of firearm possession and discharge in public, and mitigating factors such as her guilty plea, remorse, lack of criminal record, youth, and difficult personal background.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, granting credit for pre-sentence custody (25 days at 2:1) and restrictive bail conditions (710 days at 0.25:1).

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The accused, Islamunddin Attayee, was charged with assaulting his spouse and an intervening member of the public.

The primary issue at trial was the identity of the assailant, as the spouse was uncooperative.

The court found the in-dock identification by witnesses insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the need for caution as per R. v. Hibbert.

Additionally, the court noted disturbing surreptitious communications between a testifying police officer and the officer in charge during the Zoom trial, which undermined the fairness of the process and led to the accused being left without counsel.

The Crown's inaction in investigating these communications was criticized, emphasizing the Crown's heightened duty of fairness and disclosure as per R. v. Ahluwalia.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon (a flick knife) found during a police search of his pants pocket.

The accused brought an application to exclude the knife pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police detention of the accused became unlawful when he was removed from the van without proper grounds, and that the accused was denied access to counsel of choice throughout his detention.

The court excluded the knife as evidence and dismissed the charge.