Yoni S. Rahamim

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old victim during a drug-related dispute, and to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment less credit for 750 days of presentence custody, broken down as 8.5 years for manslaughter and 1.5 years consecutive for the drug trafficking offense.

The court considered sentencing ranges, aggravating factors including the use of a firearm and the insidious nature of fentanyl, and mitigating factors including the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal history, and harsh conditions in presentence custody.

The defendants, who faced multiple firearms and drug charges, applied to exclude evidence seized from a residence and a cell phone, arguing their Charter rights were violated.

The court determined that the warrantless arrest of one of the defendants was not supported by reasonable and probable grounds, making the subsequent search incident to arrest unlawful.

Additionally, the court found that the search warrants for both the residence and the cell phone lacked sufficient bases once unconstitutionally obtained and misleading information was excised.

Consequently, the court excluded all the seized evidence, including firearms and controlled substances, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Yolanda Meecham was charged with seven counts, including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of ammunition in violation of s. 109 prohibition orders.

The trial focused on whether she had constructive or joint possession of the drugs and ammunition found in her residence, which was also used by Thiago Machado, an admitted drug dealer.

The court found Meecham's explanations for her knowledge and involvement not credible, particularly regarding a large sum of cash and incriminating intercepted phone calls.

She was found guilty on the four drug trafficking counts, as her direct involvement in arranging drug deals and her knowledge of Machado's activities were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, she was acquitted on the three ammunition counts due to insufficient evidence proving her knowledge of the ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that a travel‑membership company and its two directors committed numerous offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 relating to timeshare and membership contracts sold through high‑pressure sales presentations.

The court found the corporate defendant repeatedly failed to provide contracts containing mandatory statutory information, misrepresented cancellation rights, and refused refunds after consumers attempted to exercise statutory cancellation rights.

The court applied strict‑liability principles for regulatory offences and assessed party liability under aiding‑and‑abetting doctrines.

The directors were convicted on many improper‑contract and unfair‑practice counts because, as officers and directing minds of the corporation, they knew or ought to have known that the contracts were deficient and misleading.

However, they were acquitted on many failure‑to‑refund counts where the Crown failed to prove their direct involvement or knowledge of the refusal to refund.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to exclude an utterance made to a police officer at the scene and a videotaped statement made at the police station.

The court held that the utterance at the scene was voluntary and not the product of a detention, as the officer's question was a general inquiry.

However, the court excluded the videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police breached the accused's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by deliberately failing to advise him that his jeopardy had increased to manslaughter following the victim's death.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and unlawful confinement against his daughter when she was under 16 years of age.

The sole ground of appeal was that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for meaningful appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, they were sufficiently clear to demonstrate why the conviction was reached.

The trial judge properly assessed credibility and reliability of witnesses, accepted the complainant's evidence regarding the April 16, 2013 offences, and correctly applied the W.(D.) analysis to reject the appellant's denial and defence evidence.

The offender was sentenced for his role in a violent nighttime robbery of two victims in a public park.

The offender and his co-accused used an imitation firearm and a cleaver-like knife to threaten the victims, who were also subjected to gratuitous physical violence including being pistol-whipped, kicked, and punched.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the unprovoked violence and the offender's prior record against his rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' incarceration, less 15 months of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 22 months imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant raised issues regarding DNA testing of the complainant's underwear and challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding his alibi.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence.

On sentencing, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor, but concluded the error did not justify a lesser sentence given the victim's young age, the breach of trust, the serious impact on the victim, and the appellant's prior criminal record.

At the close of the Crown's case in a jury trial for conspiracy to commit murder and related firearms offences, the accused moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy count.

The accused argued there was no evidence they participated in a conspiracy to murder the complainant.

The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including a prior bank fraud involving the parties, cell phone communications, video surveillance of the accused acting in concert, and the coordinated ambush of the complainant.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found there was some admissible evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could infer an agreement to murder the complainant.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

Four offenders with no prior criminal records were sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated commercial cocaine trafficking operation involving 43 kilograms of cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount principles for large-scale cocaine trafficking.

The directing mind received 12 years, a fully committed participant received 11 years, a trusted courier received 10 years (less pre-trial credit), and a minor participant whose vehicle was used received 6 years.

A forfeiture order was also made for the vehicle used in the offence.

Prior to the testimony of the complainant in a trial for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, the parties sought a ruling on the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding the complainant's prior acts of misconduct.

The court ruled that defence counsel could cross-examine the complainant on the factual details underlying his prior convictions, withdrawn charges, and uncharged misconduct detailed in police occurrence reports, provided there was a good faith basis.

However, defence counsel could not cross-examine the complainant on the factual allegations underlying charges for which he was acquitted, as an acquittal represents a verdict of legal innocence, though they could question him on accompanying uncharged fraudulent activities.

This criminal trial concerned a large-scale drug trafficking operation, 'Project Odyssey,' which led to the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and GHB.

Six defendants were arraigned, with one passing away during the trial.

The court addressed preliminary motions regarding confidential informant privilege and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, both of which were dismissed.

The core issues at trial involved proving possession, knowledge, and intent for trafficking and importing charges, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court's guidance on circumstantial evidence from *R. v. Villaroman*.

Ultimately, four defendants were convicted of trafficking, while one was fully acquitted.

Importing charges against two defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on drug-related charges.

Police had entered a residence without a warrant after a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute and death threats.

The trial judge found the entry unlawful and excluded the drug evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the police acted lawfully under the exigent circumstances doctrine to protect life and safety.

The acquittals were quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and forgery, and his 18-month sentence.

He alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a bank teller as a witness and for advising him not to testify.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice and accepting trial counsel's strategic reasons for not calling the appellant to testify.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge properly considered the appellant's lack of insight into his moral blameworthiness, and the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with pre-sentence custody credited on a 1:1 basis.

The sentencing judge denied enhanced credit on the mistaken belief that the appellant's bail had been revoked.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found this was a material factual misunderstanding.

Applying the principles from Summers, the Court held the appellant was entitled to enhanced credit of 1.5:1, as there was no evidence to rebut the inference that he had lost eligibility for early release.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the probation conditions imposed following a conviction for breach of probation, arguing that the requirements to remain in Ontario and report weekly were improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly exercised their discretion.

The conditions were necessary to monitor the appellant, particularly because the underlying breach occurred while he was outside the province, and did not unduly restrict his mobility rights since he could seek permission to travel or vary the reporting frequency.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child relative.

The offences occurred repeatedly over approximately one to one and a half years and involved sexual touching between the accused and a child victim in a familial setting, constituting a breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, the repeated nature of the conduct, and significant psychological harm reflected in a victim impact statement, as well as mitigating factors including the offender’s lack of criminal record and stable employment history.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in accordance with Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence below the Crown’s requested penitentiary range but above the defence’s proposed range.

Several accused charged with robbery with a firearm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and attempted murder brought applications to exclude or edit numerous text and BBM messages that the Crown sought to introduce at trial.

The applicants argued the messages constituted impermissible similar fact evidence and risked unfair prejudice by suggesting involvement in multiple robberies.

Applying the principles governing similar fact evidence from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of each message outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court held that references suggesting multiple robberies or unrelated criminal activity should generally be edited or excluded, while messages directly relevant to the planning or execution of the charged robbery were admissible.

The court therefore ordered specific edits or exclusions for numerous messages and permitted others with potential limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of evidence relating to firing‑pin indentations on three cartridges recovered from the scene of an alleged robbery and attempted murder.

Police had test‑fired two of the cartridges during the investigation, which obliterated the original firing‑pin impressions and prevented later forensic comparison with a handgun recovered a year later.

The accused argued that the loss of the original impressions constituted unacceptable negligence and breached their right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter, warranting exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that the police conduct amounted to unacceptable negligence and therefore constituted a breach of s. 7.

However, the court held that exclusion of the evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the potential prejudice was speculative and could be addressed through cross‑examination and a jury instruction regarding the Crown’s failure to preserve evidence.