Zaire Puil

The accused was convicted of second-degree murder for striking and driving over the victim with his vehicle following a confrontation outside an after-hours bar in Toronto on February 5, 2023.

The Crown had alleged planned and deliberate first-degree murder, but the jury rejected this theory.

The court imposed a life sentence with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years.

The decision addresses the sentencing principles applicable to second-degree murder, the consideration of a sentencing circle request (which was dismissed), aggravating factors including the use of a vehicle as a weapon in a public space, and mitigating factors including the accused's Indigenous background, youth, lack of criminal record, and the jury's unanimous recommendation for the minimum 10-year ineligibility period.

The court sentenced Josue Varela Granado for a series of offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, impaired driving, and related offences.

The court found the circumstances to be at the most serious end of the spectrum for true crime firearm possession, emphasizing the aggravating factors of impairment, public possession, and resistance to arrest.

The total sentence imposed was seven years and 15 days, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, forfeiture, and a driving prohibition.

The court considered mitigating factors such as youth, rehabilitative potential, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, but prioritized deterrence and denunciation.

The accused, LB, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of his step-granddaughter AD, aged 10-15, between 2013 and 2018.

The Crown presented evidence from AD, her mother, and a police officer, while the defence called AD's brother and LB himself.

The court applied the W.(D.) principle, assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

While acknowledging the challenges of child witness testimony and delayed disclosure, the judge found significant unreliability in AD's evidence, particularly regarding inconsistencies and omissions of key details in her statements.

Coupled with the strength of LB's denials and explanations, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

LB was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant, Adrian Thomas, was charged with multiple offences, including assault with intent to resist arrest and various firearm-related charges, following a traffic stop and struggle with police.

The court found the initial traffic stop lawful and the prolonged detention not arbitrary.

However, it found that the police used excessive force during the arrest, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 7 Charter rights, and that there were unjustified delays in providing and facilitating access to counsel, breaching section 10(b) Charter rights.

While the search of the vehicle was deemed a lawful inventory search, the court applied the Grant analysis and determined that the serious section 7 violation necessitated the exclusion of the handgun evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty of all gun-related charges but guilty of resisting arrest.

This ruling addresses a Section 276 Criminal Code application in a sexual assault case, where the accused, Habtamu Kebede, sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity and communications.

The court dismissed the application for certain utterances (race-based sexual preferences and sexual inactivity) due to lack of relevance and high prejudicial effect.

However, it granted the admission of video evidence showing flirtatious behaviour at a bar and evidence of a goodbye kiss at the complainant's Airbnb, finding these relevant to the complainant's credibility and the surrounding circumstances of the alleged offence, with their probative value outweighing any prejudice.

The appellant, Juan Solorzano Sanclemente, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the blended sentence imposed.

The appeal raised four grounds: the trial judge's dismissal of an application to introduce evidence of extrinsic and contemporaneous sexual activity of the complainant under s. 276 of the Criminal Code; the failure to instruct the jury on the defence of mistaken belief in communicated consent; the failure to exclude a video recorded interview for a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter; and an unbalanced jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and sentence.

The court found no error in the trial judge's application of s. 276, the air of reality test for the mistaken belief defence, the Charter s. 10 analysis, or the fairness of the jury charge.

Mr. Park was convicted of simple possession of cocaine, fentanyl, and oxycodone after being acquitted of possession for the purposes of trafficking.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of four to six months, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge, emphasizing Mr. Park's rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior record, and the COVID-19 pandemic's risks.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, distinguishing the case from others involving illicit fentanyl trafficking.

Ultimately, the court granted Mr. Park a conditional discharge with a one-year probation period, focusing on rehabilitation given his personal circumstances as a first offender and his efforts to address addiction and pursue education/employment.

S.H., a 19-year-old with a lengthy youth record, was detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for firearm possession offences after a loaded handgun was found on him while being treated for gunshot wounds.

He applied for a bail review, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, increasing his risk in custody and providing a strong incentive to comply with bail conditions, especially with electronic monitoring.

The court considered the strong Crown case, gravity of the offence, and circumstances of the offence, which favored detention.

However, it also weighed the public health imperative of reducing inmate populations during the pandemic, supported by expert epidemiological evidence, and the anticipated trial delays.

The court found that with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring via Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) for GPS tracking, the applicant could be safely released, thereby enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice by contributing to public health efforts.

In a trial for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought to qualify a police sergeant as an expert witness on the sale and distribution of drugs.

The accused opposed the qualification, arguing the officer lacked special knowledge and was biased because he belonged to the same drug enforcement unit as the investigating officers.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, finding the officer had the requisite experience and understood his duty to be fair and impartial.

The court held that being from the same police service did not automatically disqualify the expert, and admitted the evidence.

The accused, David Odesho, brought an application under Section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a strip search and challenged the admissibility of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence found on his underwear.

The court found that the strip search violated Section 8 because there were insufficient grounds to justify it and it was conducted unreasonably, particularly due to being videotaped in its entirety and not authorized by an independent supervisor.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the underwear and GSR analysis under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

Additionally, the court ruled that the single particle of GSR found on the underwear 48 hours after the shooting lacked logical relevance and was inadmissible as expert evidence under the Mohan test, given the numerous alternate explanations for its presence and its low probative value.