Yeshe Laine

The accused, Jessica Tadam, was charged with assault and uttering a threat after an altercation with a Walmart asset protection investigator, Mark Burai.

Burai observed Tadam shoplifting and attempted to recover the merchandise.

Tadam claimed self-defence, alleging Burai assaulted her.

The court found Burai to be a credible witness and Tadam's testimony implausible.

The court determined that Tadam's actions were not for self-defence but to evade apprehension for theft.

The court also held that the self-defence exclusion under s. 34(3) of the Criminal Code applied, as Burai was authorized by law to use force to prevent the theft, and Tadam did not reasonably believe he was acting unlawfully.

Even if s. 34(3) did not apply, the court found Tadam's response disproportionate and her motive not genuinely defensive.

Tadam was found guilty of both assault and uttering a threat.

Ala Al Safi pleaded guilty to ten counts of aggravated sexual assault or attempted aggravated sexual assault and breaching a recognizance condition related to his HIV status and sexual encounters.

The court imposed a ten-year sentence, reduced by enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, and declared him a Long-Term Offender, imposing a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order with specific conditions aimed at public safety and rehabilitation, particularly regarding HIV disclosure and medication adherence.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with a defaced serial number hidden in his vehicle, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6.5 years, arguing the offence was at the 'true crime' end of the spectrum.

The court disagreed, finding no evidence the firearm was possessed for drug trafficking, and imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years.

The court granted enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in a sentence of time served.

The offender's vehicle was ordered forfeited as offence-related property.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges including possession of a loaded firearm and drug trafficking, after breaching his initial bail conditions.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan involving his parents as sureties and GPS monitoring.

However, conducting a de novo review, the court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences involving a loaded firearm and fentanyl, and concerns about the proposed sureties' ability to supervise him.

The Crown applied for a bail review after the accused was released on charges relating to two drive-by shootings, firearm possession, and drug trafficking.

The Superior Court of Justice found a material change in circumstances due to a new ballistics report linking the accused's seized handgun to the shootings.

The court also found that the justice of the peace erred in law by applying the ladder principle in a reverse onus situation, failing to conduct a proper risk analysis, and misapplying the tertiary ground test.

The court vacated the release orders and ordered the accused detained on both the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the strong Crown case and the grave risk to public safety.

The applicant brought a motion under section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence (a firearm) found in his vehicle, arguing that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle and the subsequent search warrant were unlawful.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to seize the vehicle without a warrant under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a recent shooting and was believed to contain trace evidence.

Alternatively, the seizure was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act due to improper license plates.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Garofoli challenge, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the issuing justice could still have granted the search warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The firearm used in the shooting was later found hidden in the dashboard of the accused's vehicle.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his use of the vehicle around the time of the shooting, and a fabricated report to police that the vehicle had been stolen.

The court found the accused guilty of the firearms possession charges, concluding he had constructive possession and knowledge of the firearm hidden in his vehicle.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the attempted murder charges, finding a reasonable inference that someone else may have been driving the vehicle at the time of the shooting.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and failing to comply with a recognizance.

Both the defendant and complainant resided in a group home for individuals with cognitive disabilities.

The complainant, who suffers from Down's Syndrome and is mostly non-verbal, could not testify.

The defendant spent 5.5 months in custody awaiting trial while a supervision plan was arranged.

The Crown's case required expert evidence regarding the complainant's capacity to consent.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found the total delay of approximately 21 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances beyond its control.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and failing to comply with probation.

The central issue was identification.

The court considered eyewitness testimony, including a photo lineup and in-dock identification, alongside circumstantial evidence such as the accused's physical state, injuries, possession of money matching the stolen amount, a TTC transfer placing him at the scene, and suspicious conduct regarding a wet jacket.

Despite some inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, the cumulative circumstantial evidence, combined with one reliable eyewitness identification, proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL of blood and acquitted of impaired driving.

This was his fourth drinking-driving conviction, with prior convictions in 1992, 2005, and 2007.

The Crown sought nine months incarceration and a five-year driving prohibition.

The defence argued for a non-custodial sentence based on the defendant's substantial rehabilitation efforts, including completion of withdrawal management and residential treatment programs, stable employment, and strong community support.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence, two years' probation, and a four-year driving prohibition, finding that while custody was necessary for deterrence and denunciation, the defendant's comprehensive rehabilitation warranted a sentence equal to his third conviction rather than a more severe penalty.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and over 80 operation of a motor vehicle on April 13, 2014.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness testimony from two neighbours who identified the defendant as the driver of the truck, and police observations of impairment.

The defence argued that the defendant did not drive the vehicle and that a paid stranger drove it instead.

The court found the defendant guilty of over 80 operation, finding that the defendant operated the vehicle within two hours of the breath test, satisfying section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was acquitted on the impaired operation charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused applied to rejoin his trial with that of a co-accused after previously consenting to severance.

The court considered the discretion under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code and the general presumption that co-accused should be tried together.

However, the court held that the interests of justice favoured maintaining the severance given the age of the case, the readiness of the parties and witnesses for trial, and the absence of demonstrable prejudice to the accused.

The court also noted that the defence sought to reverse a prior tactical decision and that the co-accused’s testimony could still be obtained as a witness.

The application to rejoin the trials was dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including armed robbery, following the robbery of a convenience store.

The store owner and a bystander chased the two robbers to a subway station, where police arrested the accused and a co-accused in possession of the stolen goods and a weapon.

The accused denied involvement, claiming they found the stolen items abandoned by the real robbers.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated, admitted the co-accused's videotaped KGB statement, and found the accused guilty based on the continuous chain of observation, physical evidence, and consciousness of guilt.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, arising from his participation in a home invasion robbery.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching two firearms prohibition orders and two probation orders.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the accused sought the mandatory minimum of 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, but applying the totality principle and considering the accused's youth.

The court also granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to onerous conditions.

The offenders were convicted by a jury of aggravated assault arising from a two‑on‑one attack in a Toronto nightclub that resulted in serious facial injuries, including a broken jaw requiring surgery.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 months to two years less a day, while the defence proposed a 90‑day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the principles of proportionality and parity under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, noting the unprovoked nature of the assault and the significant injuries as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offenders’ youth, stable employment, community support, and minimal or non‑violent criminal histories.

Emphasizing rehabilitation and the limited risk of reoffending, the court imposed intermittent custodial sentences rather than lengthy incarceration.