Victoria Strugurescu

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for murder, arson, and assault offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, requested to be absent from the hearing.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing delusions and the severe nature of his index offences.

Accepting psychiatric evidence that a less secure facility would pose too great a risk, the Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Waypoint High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for murder, arson, and assault offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, is currently detained at a high secure forensic program.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing delusions and the severity of his index offences.

Accepting the psychiatric evidence that a less secure facility would pose too great a risk, the Board ordered the continuation of his current disposition without change.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to manslaughter arising from a prolonged group beating at a drug-fuelled gathering in which a third participant inflicted catastrophic hammer blows.

The court held that the offenders' moral culpability was high and that the actus reus and mens rea were at the upper end of manslaughter, closer to murder than negligence, warranting a sentence within the 8-to-12-year range for manslaughter with aggravating features.

Guilty pleas, remorse, first-offender status, addiction, housing insecurity, rehabilitative prospects, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions mitigated sentence but did not displace denunciation and deterrence as the primary objectives.

The court imposed 8.5-year penitentiary terms less enhanced pre-sentence custody, with lifetime firearms prohibitions and DNA orders.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a positive reporting year but recently suffered a significant decompensation involving delusions and paranoia directed at his parents.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention at the forensic service with added privileges for community living (to access housing waitlists) and accompanied passes into the community within a 150-kilometre radius to allow family visits.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to readmit the accused, who was previously residing in the community, thereby significantly restricting his liberty.

The accused had been exhibiting a deterioration in mental status, testing positive for cocaine, and failing to maintain his supported housing.

The Board found that the readmission and continued detention were necessary, warranted, and the least onerous and restrictive measures available to manage his risk to public safety.

The applicant brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The applicant and co-accused were charged with human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, receiving material benefit from sexual services, procuring, advertising sexual services, and theft.

The trial was initially scheduled for October 7, 2024, but was adjourned at the co-accused's request due to personal circumstances.

The rescheduled trial was set for September 29, 2025.

The court found that the net delay was 41 months and 28 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling by 11 months and 28 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court applied an individualized approach to delay attribution and found that the co-accused did not proceed as a collective.

The Crown could have ameliorated the delay through severance but failed to do so.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The court determines the appropriate period of parole ineligibility for Craig Brooks, convicted of second-degree murder.

After reviewing the facts, victim impact statements, the character of the offender, and relevant case law, the court imposes a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the lack of remorse and pretrial custody conditions.

The offenders, a mother and father, were convicted of multiple counts of severe physical and sexual abuse, including incest, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement, committed against four of their children over nearly two decades.

The court applied the principles from Friesen, emphasizing the profound harm caused by sexual violence against children and the egregious breach of trust.

After applying the totality principle to the numerous consecutive sentences, the mother was sentenced to a global term of 17 years and 8 months, and the father to a global term of 21 years.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and failure to comply with a release order following a string of 16 convenience store robberies committed over four hours.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court considered the offender's background, including anti-Black racism and mental health issues, alongside the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun and robbery offences.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with enhanced credit granted for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns, leaving 633 days to serve.

Sufyan Jogiyat pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence proposed 4 years.

The court sentenced Mr. Jogiyat to 4 years and 4 months for aggravated assault and 18 months consecutive for drug trafficking, resulting in a global sentence of 5 years and 10 months.

The judge also ruled on the admissibility of aggravating evidence regarding prior trafficking, excluding it as it was not sufficiently material and risked unduly prolonging the hearing.

The decision considered the principles of sentencing, aggravating factors (home invasion, commercial drug operation), and mitigating factors (guilty pleas, remorse, youth, first offender status, pre-sentence custody conditions).

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to sexual interference and child luring arising from prolonged online sexual communications with a child, grooming behaviour, and two acts of sexual intercourse when the complainant was 15.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives under the Criminal Code and applied the Supreme Court of Canada's direction that luring is a distinct offence causing separate harm, warranting consecutive treatment subject to totality.

Despite a guilty plea, no criminal record, strong support, and expert evidence of low risk of reoffending, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence because of the duration of the conduct, the planning and grooming, the age disparity, and the severe psychological harm to the complainant.

The court also granted most ancillary orders, declined the broad park-attendance prohibition for lack of evidentiary foundation, and ordered $10,000 restitution for therapy.

The defendants, facing a first-degree murder charge, applied for a challenge for cause based on racial and unconscious bias during jury selection.

The court found the threshold for such a challenge was met, acknowledging the necessity of questioning jurors on these biases.

The ruling addresses the specific questions to be posed to potential jurors, refining the defence's proposed questions.

The judge emphasized that the key is a juror's commitment to setting aside biases to render an impartial verdict, rather than merely identifying the existence of bias.

A specific preamble and four questions were approved for the challenge for cause.

The Crown sought to admit extrinsic discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, Shamar Bailey and Kwami Garwood, in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence included a prior incident involving a firearm (Tragunna Lane Incident), firearm photographs found on a co-perpetrator's cellphone, a booking/release video of one accused, and ammunition found in another accused's residence.

The court applied the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect for each item.

The Tragunna Lane Incident, firearm photographs, and ammunition were found admissible.

The booking/release video was admissible only as edited still images to mitigate prejudice.

The defendant, Shamar Bailey, brought a motion to exclude statements made to a police sergeant, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 9 (arbitrary detention) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

Bailey argued that a traffic stop conducted by Sgt. Lawson was a pretext or ruse to further a homicide investigation, rather than a legitimate Highway Traffic Act (HTA) stop.

The court found that Sgt. Lawson had a legitimate road safety purpose for the stop, based on information about erratic driving and a dangling fuel cap, even though there was also a dominant criminal investigative purpose.

The court reiterated that a dual purpose does not invalidate a stop if a legitimate regulatory purpose exists.

Consequently, the detention was found to be lawful under the HTA, and thus, the right to counsel was suspended.

The application to exclude the statements was dismissed.

Shamar Bailey, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude his video-recorded statement to homicide officers under section 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that two strip searches conducted after his arrest violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the second strip search, conducted at 42 Division, was unconstitutional as it lacked objective justification, being based solely on the officer-in-charge's lack of knowledge about the thoroughness of the initial search.

Applying the Grant factors for section 24(2) exclusion, the court found the Charter-infringing conduct serious, the impact on the accused's privacy significant, and the utility of the evidence for the prosecution marginal.

Consequently, the court excluded the statement, concluding that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of kidnapping, threatening conduct, sexual assault, breaching a no-contact order, uttering threats, attempting to obstruct justice, and intimidating a justice system participant, arising from intimate-partner violence, forced confinement, coerced drug ingestion, sexual activity obtained through fear, and subsequent jail calls to the complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant credible and reliable despite memory gaps on peripheral details, and rejected the accused’s denials on the material issues.

On the sexual assault count, the court applied the consent principles in Ewanchuk and held that any ostensible consent was vitiated by choking, threats, fear, and duress.

The accused was acquitted only on the count alleging administration of Ketamine with intent to endanger life or cause bodily harm because the Crown conceded the requisite mens rea was not proven.

In a criminal trial for failing to provide a breath sample, the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted the defendant.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's refusal was conditional on being allowed a sip of water, a request denied by police based on an unproven "rule" of the qualified technician.

The court determined that the refusal was not unequivocal and that the police had rushed to conclude a refusal without providing a "last chance warning" or recording the final interaction in the breath room.

The offender, Abdul Hamid, was found guilty of breaching a s. 161(4) prohibition order, which prohibited contact with children under 16 unless supervised.

The breach involved inviting a 13-year-old vulnerable complainant into his apartment.

The Crown sought 10-12 months custody and probation, while the offender sought time-served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing goals for s. 161 breaches.

Considering aggravating factors (prior child-luring conviction, flagrant breach, lack of remorse, vulnerability of complainant) and mitigating factors (offence not instigated, family support, religious, physical disability, restrictive bail), the court imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment, with 3 months credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in an additional 5 months of provincial custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate due to the need for strong denunciation and specific deterrence.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing the 18-year-old complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The complainant, who is on the autism spectrum and experiences panic attacks, expressed fear of confronting the accused in person.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the complainant testified without issue at the preliminary inquiry and lacked medical documentation for her diagnoses.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold for testimonial aids is whether it would facilitate a full and candid account, and concluded that CCTV testimony would enhance the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation by drug and dangerous driving.

He brought a Charter application alleging excessive force during arrest (ss. 7 and 12 violations) and sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (an inculpatory statement and blood analysis results).

The court found the police use of force, including a forced vehicle stop, firearm display, window smash, and taser deployment, to be objectively reasonable and justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The defendant conceded the dangerous driving charge.

The court found the defendant guilty of both impaired operation by drug and dangerous operation based on circumstantial evidence and expert toxicological testimony.