10.10.2024
In R. v. C.D. (Oct 10, 2024), the defendant was convicted of drug trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. He received a global sentence of 4 years and 6 months, with:
– 3 years and 6 months for firearm offences,
– 1 year for drug trafficking,
– 6 months for proceeds of crime (concurrent).
– 81 days credit for pre-sentence custody.
Mitigating factors: First-time jail sentence, some remorse, and potential for rehabilitation.
Aggravating factors: Involvement with illegal firearms and commercial drug trafficking, posing a threat to public safety.
The Court emphasized deterrence, proportionality, and public protection, dismissing arguments for reduced sentencing based on systemic racism. Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.
– decision of Justice M. Felix
6.20.2023
The client, a superintendent in an apartment building, was accused of sexually touching a tenant while ostensibly inspecting her smoke alarm. The complainant made the accusation a day after receiving a notice to end her tenancy due to difficulties in making rent payments.
During the trial, the judge found the client to be a credible witness. His testimony was supported by the evidence provided by other witnesses. The judge described the client as “a hard-working, professional employee” and noted that there was nothing in his testimony that indicated dishonesty. In contrast, the judge expressed concerns about the Crown’s case, stating that she could not infer the same level of truthfulness with respect to the complainant.
As a result, the client was acquitted of the charges.
– decision of Madam Justice K. McLeod
3.28.2023
In R. v. Muzafary, 2023 ONSC 1989, S.L. applied for severance of his trial from co-accused Yasmin Muzafary, arguing that a separate trial was necessary for him to call her as a witness to support his self-defence claim. S.L. and Muzafary were involved in an incident on December 30, 2021, where Muzafary allegedly drove over a complainant, while S.L. attacked another with a baseball bat. S.L. contended that Muzafary could provide testimony supporting his claim that he acted out of fear for his safety.
Justice O’Marra dismissed the application, finding that the interest of justice did not require severance. The court noted the strong presumption in favour of joint trials for co-accused acting in concert and highlighted that the video evidence showed a joint attack. S.L. failed to provide evidence that Muzafary would testify in his favour if the trials were severed. Furthermore, the court emphasized that severing the trials would lead to duplicative proceedings, which would be inefficient.
The application was denied, and S.L. and Muzafary were ordered to be tried together.
– decision of Madam Justice A.J. O’Marra
2.24.2023
In this case, the client was facing allegations of inappropriate touching reported by his ex-wife, based on statements purportedly made by their child. At the time, the client and his former partner were involved in divorce proceedings, with custody still pending before the Family Court. The ex-wife had been prohibited from relocating with the child to a different jurisdiction following a court ruling.
During the trial, the client strongly denied the allegations. The child’s testimony changed significantly, particularly during cross-examination, where the child admitted that part of the initial account provided to the police was untrue. This discrepancy was further corroborated by the investigating officer.
The trial judge found the client’s testimony to be “forthright, clear, and consistent.” Her Honour also expressed concern that the ex-wife may have, whether knowingly or unintentionally, influenced the child’s narrative during interactions with her, the police, and the court. Moreover, the judge criticized the actions of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) worker involved in the investigation, suggesting that the worker’s conduct was “bordering on, if not, unprofessional.”
As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges and found not guilty.
1.25.2023
During the raid, Mr. R.L. attempted to evade arrest by throwing a loaded Glock 19 firearm off the balcony and scaling down to a lower unit. He was apprehended, and the weapon along with ammunition and a magazine were recovered. Inside the residence, police found Mr. B.O. and Ms. R.R.B., along with three additional firearms—two Glock pistols (models 45 and 17), a loaded Iver Johnson revolver, five magazines, and more ammunition.
All three individuals were charged with four offences related to the possession of the firearms. However, at trial, the judge acquitted Ms. R.R.B., concluding that the Crown had not established that she had the necessary control or possession of the firearms and other seized items. Thus, Ms. R.R.B. was cleared of all charges.
– decision of Justice Shandler
12.30.2022
In this case, Mr. S.P. was charged with aggravated assault for slashing his intoxicated son-in-law, M.M., with a box cutter. Mr. S.P. admitted to the act but claimed self-defence.
The court found:
– Reasonable belief in threat: M.M. was drunk, angry, and aggressive, attempting to confront Mr. S.P. physically.
– Purpose of protection: Mr. S.P. acted to defend himself and his wife, who was caught in the altercation.
– Reasonableness of force: As a 68-year-old facing a younger, stronger, and uncontrollable man, Mr. S.P.’s response with the knife was deemed reasonable.
Though Mr. S.P. contributed to the conflict and was intoxicated, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn’t acting in self-defence.
Conclusion: Mr. S.P. was found not guilty.
11.02.2021
In November 2021, a former student of St. Michael’s College School in Toronto was sentenced to two years of probation for his involvement in the 2018 sexual assault of a fellow student. The assault, which took place in the school’s locker room, involved the victim being sexually assaulted with a broomstick while a group of boys cheered. The incident, which was captured on video and circulated on social media, sparked a police investigation and a larger conversation about violent hazing in high school sports teams.
Ontario Court Justice Manjusha Pawagi found the teen guilty of gang sexual assault and assault with a weapon, rejecting his defense that he participated out of fear of being harmed. Despite this, the judge acknowledged the teen’s efforts to make amends, including apologizing to the victim and completing community service. The Crown had sought a three-month custodial sentence, but the defense successfully argued for probation, noting the same sentence was given to the other four involved teens, who pleaded guilty in 2019.
The assaults prompted widespread criticism of the school’s handling of the incidents and discussions around the culture of hazing in sports. A pending lawsuit has also been filed against the school and its former principal by another victim.
11.02.2021
In November 2021, a former St. Michael’s College School student was sentenced to two years of probation for his involvement in the 2018 locker room sexual assault of a fellow student. The teen was convicted of gang sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon for restraining the victim while others sexually assaulted him with a broomstick. The case sparked a national conversation on hazing and bullying in youth sports.
The assault, captured on video and circulated on social media, led to police investigations and multiple charges against seven students. The accused was the only one to stand trial, as four others pleaded guilty and received similar probation sentences. The Crown had sought a three-month custodial sentence, but the judge opted for probation, citing consistency with previous sentences and the teen’s potential for rehabilitation.
The teen claimed he participated out of fear of becoming a target himself, a defence the judge rejected. The incident and its aftermath prompted resignations from the school’s president and principal, as well as an investigation that revealed systemic bullying issues at the institution.
– article by Liam Casey,
10.15.2021
In this case related to the 2018 St. Michael’s College School sexual assault, the prosecution sought a three-month jail sentence for a teen found guilty of gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault. The incident involved the violent and humiliating assault of another student with a broom handle in the school locker room, which was captured on video and widely circulated on social media. Crown attorney Sarah De Filippis emphasized the severity of the attack, stating it had long-lasting effects on the victim, potentially leading to future psychological harm.
The teen’s defence lawyer, Geary Tomlinson, argued that his client should receive a probationary sentence of two years, similar to four other teens who pleaded guilty in the case. Tomlinson pointed out that his client was remorseful, apologized to the victim, and had since focused on rehabilitation, including community service and continuing education. Despite the teen’s claim that he participated out of fear of becoming a victim himself, the judge rejected this, stating he could have chosen not to participate.
Sentencing for the teen was scheduled for November 2, 2021.
– article by Liam Casey,
06.25.2021
In this case related to the 2018 St. Michael’s College School sexual assault, the prosecution sought a three-month jail sentence for a teen found guilty of gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault. The incident involved the violent and humiliating assault of another student with a broom handle in the school locker room, which was captured on video and widely circulated on social media. Crown attorney Sarah De Filippis emphasized the severity of the attack, stating it had long-lasting effects on the victim, potentially leading to future psychological harm.
The teen’s defence lawyer, Geary Tomlinson, argued that his client should receive a probationary sentence of two years, similar to four other teens who pleaded guilty in the case. Tomlinson pointed out that his client was remorseful, apologized to the victim, and had since focused on rehabilitation, including community service and continuing education. Despite the teen’s claim that he participated out of fear of becoming a victim himself, the judge rejected this, stating he could have chosen not to participate.
Sentencing for the teen was scheduled for November 2, 2021.
– article by Paola Loriggio and Liam Casey,
04.22.2021
In this update on the St. Michael’s College School sexual assault case, a judge withdrew charges against one of the teens related to an October 2018 locker room sexual assault due to insufficient evidence. Ontario Court Justice Manjusha Pawagi ruled that no reasonable inference could link the teen to the attack, despite testimony that placed him in the vicinity before the assault occurred.
The teen, however, still faces charges of gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault in connection with a more widely reported incident in November 2018. The teen testified he was coerced into holding down the victim, fearing he would be attacked if he didn’t comply. The defense argued that the teen participated under an implicit threat in a bullying environment where violence and hazing were prevalent. The victim of the November assault did not testify, but his police statement was presented in court.
The trial continues, with closing submissions due in mid-May.
– reported by
04.22.2021
In a public and emotional testimony, the only teen to stand trial for his involvement in the St. Michael’s College sexual assault scandal admitted that he held down the arm of a fellow student during the violent incident in November 2018. The teen, now 18, claimed that he felt he had no choice but to participate in the assault, fearing that if he didn’t, the group would turn on him and subject him to the same abuse. He testified, “I just did what the mob of people told me to do.”
The assault occurred in the locker room after a championship football game, where a group of students circled the victim, pulled down his pants, and sodomized him with a broom handle. The incident was filmed on a cellphone, and this 22-second video clip became crucial evidence in the case. The trial revealed the culture of bullying at the elite all-boys Catholic school, where the accused claimed violence was an everyday occurrence.
During cross-examination, the Crown attorney challenged the accused’s claim that he was merely acting out of fear, suggesting that he could have chosen not to participate and that he prioritized his own safety over the victim’s well-being. The teen admitted that no one had explicitly threatened him but insisted the threat was implied due to the bullying environment.
Justice Manjusha Pawagi will deliver her verdict on June 25. Three other teens involved in the attack have already pleaded guilty, while similar charges related to a prior incident in October 2018 were withdrawn against the accused due to insufficient evidence.
– reported by Michele Mandel, Toronto Sun
04.20.2021
The assault occurred in the locker room after a championship football game, where a group of students circled the victim, pulled down his pants, and sodomized him with a broom handle. The incident was filmed on a cellphone, and this 22-second video clip became crucial evidence in the case. The trial revealed the culture of bullying at the elite all-boys Catholic school, where the accused claimed violence was an everyday occurrence.
During cross-examination, the Crown attorney challenged the accused’s claim that he was merely acting out of fear, suggesting that he could have chosen not to participate and that he prioritized his own safety over the victim’s well-being. The teen admitted that no one had explicitly threatened him but insisted the threat was implied due to the bullying environment.
Justice Manjusha Pawagi will deliver her verdict on June 25. Three other teens involved in the attack have already pleaded guilty, while similar charges related to a prior incident in October 2018 were withdrawn against the accused due to insufficient evidence.
– reported by Liam Casey, The Canadian Press
03.25.2021
“A defence lawyer argued in court on Tuesday that video evidence should be throw out in the St. Michael’s College sexual assault trial.”
– reported by Adrian Ghobrial, CityNews
03.04.2021
In the trial of a teen accused of sexually assaulting two students at St. Michael’s College School in Toronto, a key witness revised his previous testimony. The teen, who had initially testified that the accused pulled down the pants of a victim before another student assaulted the victim with a broom handle, now stated that he could not clearly see what happened due to the large group of students involved. Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that his previous accounts, given over two years ago, were inconsistent with his recent testimony.
The accused, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault with a weapon, faces allegations from two separate incidents that occurred in October and November 2018 in the school’s football locker room. The witness also changed his testimony regarding another alleged sexual assault involving a third victim, which had not been previously discussed in court.
Another witness testified that the football team’s coach, Daniel Lumsden, had instructed players to delete a photo of one of the victims that circulated among students, though Lumsden denied this claim in earlier testimony.
– reported by Liam Casey, The Canadian Press
03.04.2021
In a trial concerning a sexual assault at Toronto’s St. Michael’s College School, a teenage boy is accused of helping restrain a fellow student while the victim was sexually assaulted with a broom handle. The incident, which occurred in November 2018, was captured in a 22-second cellphone video that was widely shared on social media. In the video, the victim is seen attempting to block the broom handle with his hands, which were then grabbed and held by the accused, according to Detective Constable Daniel Sunghing of the Toronto police sex crimes unit.
The accused, who has pleaded not guilty, faces multiple charges of gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault with a weapon. Surveillance footage presented in court showed the accused entering and leaving the locker room around the time of the incident. Sunghing testified that the clothing and facial features in the video matched those of the accused.
Additionally, the accused faces charges related to a similar sexual assault in October 2018. However, his defense lawyer, Geary Tomlinson, presented an alibi, stating that the accused’s transit card was used at a downtown Toronto station around the time of the alleged assault, making it “next to impossible” for him to have been involved.
The trial follows the guilty pleas of four other teens involved in the case, three of whom were sentenced to two years of probation. One also pleaded guilty to creating child pornography for recording the November assault. The case has sparked national discussions on bullying and the culture of hazing in schools. The trial is set to continue on April 1.
– reported by Liam Casey, The Canadian Press
02.05.2021
“The former principal of St. Michael’s College School testified at the trial of an accused student for the sexual assault of another child, explaining why he didn’t immediately summon police to investigate.”
– reported by Adrian Ghobrial, CityNews
12.08.2020
In the trial involving a former St. Michael’s College School student, a witness testified about a suspicious gathering in the school’s locker room after a championship football game in November 2018. The witness, who did not witness the sexual assault but saw a large crowd, described the scene as resembling a “gang,” with bantering and yelling, though he could not identify who was involved.
The witness later walked with the complainant, who expressed frustration and pain, showed torn underwear, and said he wanted to transfer schools. The accused teen, who has pleaded not guilty to gang sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and assault with a weapon, faces charges related to two incidents in which students were sexually assaulted with a broom handle.
The witness also admitted to sharing a video of another incident in which a student was struck with a broom in the same locker room earlier that fall, though he did not initially realize the seriousness of sharing the video.
Last week, the court viewed videos of a different teen describing his experiences to the police. That teen, initially charged in the November incident, recounted being assaulted in the locker room in September and October 2018 but had charges against him dropped. He also alleged that the accused restrained the arms of the November victim during the assault.
Three other teens have pleaded guilty to their roles in the assaults, receiving probation. The trial will resume on January 29, 2021.
– article by Paola Loriggio,
12.01.2020
““I feared for my own safety a little bit,” he told the investigator in the video. The boys behind the incident were popular with students and teachers alike, and the teen believed he would be blamed if they were expelled as a result of the incident.“
– article by Paola Loriggio,
03.04.2020
“The last St. Mike’s student charged in the sex assault scandal from 2018 began his trial today. The 15-year-old’s charges and the shocking case were discussed by the crown and the police.“
– reported by Pam Seatle, CityNews
11.23.2018
In response to the ongoing investigation into sexual assault cases at St. Michael’s College School in Toronto, two top administrators, President Jefferson Thompson and Principal Greg Reeves, have resigned to enable the school to move forward without distractions.
Toronto police have arrested six male students on charges including assault, gang sexual assault, and sexual assault with a weapon. The incidents, recorded on video, are believed to have occurred during the 2018 school year. Authorities are investigating additional potential crimes, with more videos surfacing, including footage of a threatening event and an assault involving a belt.
The incidents, which began as hazing, reportedly escalated into criminal acts, according to Inspector Dominic Sinopoli, who leads the sex crimes unit. In response, St. Michael’s College School has expelled eight students. The school, founded in 1852 and Ontario’s only independent Catholic school for boys, expressed deep regret and emphasized its commitment to supporting the victims and safeguarding the student body’s well-being.
– reported by , and , CNN
11.21.2018
The sexual assault of a male student at St. Michael’s College School, a prestigious all-boys Catholic school in Toronto, led to the arrest of six students facing charges of assault, gang sexual assault, and sexual assault with a weapon.
The incident, recorded on video, occurred during the 2018 school year. Toronto police’s sex crimes unit, headed by Inspector Dominic Sinopoli, is also investigating other possible offences, revealing that they have as many as four videos tied to the case.
Police believe what began as hazing escalated into criminal activity. Two additional videos, showing a threatening incident and an assault with a belt, were also uncovered and are now being treated as criminal acts.
In response, the school has expelled eight students, issuing a public statement denouncing the incidents as deeply contradictory to its core values. St. Michael’s College School, founded in 1852, affirmed its commitment to supporting the victims and prioritizing the safety and well-being of its entire student body.
– reported by , and , CNN
06.11.2018
L.S.. was arrested on August 19, 2016, and charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. L.S. filed a Charter application, alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude his statements and evidence, including the cocaine found.
The key issue was whether the police had reasonable grounds to arrest L.S. after stopping him for using a cell phone while driving. During the stop, Officer Best claimed to have smelled marijuana and observed a Ziploc bag containing marijuana in L.S.’s car, which led to the discovery of 21.79 grams of crack cocaine. L.S. contested the officer’s observations and claimed the bag was sealed.
The court ruled that Officer Best had reasonable grounds to arrest L.S. for possession of marijuana based on the visible bag and odour. However, the court found that Officer Best breached L.S.’s Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b) by asking about the bag before informing him of his right to counsel. Despite the breach, the court admitted the cocaine as evidence, applying the Grant test. The court determined that the breach was minor, not deliberate, and that excluding the cocaine would harm the justice system’s truth-seeking function.
L.S>’s application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the cocaine was admitted for trial.
– decision of Madam Justice N.J. Spies
12.15.2016
In the case R. v. J.B., Mr. J.B. was convicted of several firearm-related offences. The circumstances of the offence stemmed from a traffic dispute reported by a citizen, leading police to investigate Mr. J.B.. Upon stopping his vehicle, police found a satchel containing a loaded revolver and ammunition. Mr. J.B. attempted to grab the satchel, fled, and was caught after a 20-minute chase.
Key facts of the case:
- Possession of a firearm: The revolver was loaded with six .38-caliber bullets. Ammunition was also found in a backpack in the back seat of the car.
- Fleeing from police: J.B. resisted the police, attempting to grab the satchel and fleeing into a wooded area before his capture.
Sentencing:
- Aggravating Factors: J.B. carried the firearm in a public, residential area, posing a threat to the public and police. He had a history of violent offences, including robbery and assault, and was on probation at the time of the offence. He did not take responsibility for his actions.
- Mitigating Factors: J.B.’s youth (he was 20 at the time of the offence), the support of his family, and his eventual concession that the evidence against him was sufficient after his Charter challenge was denied.
Sentencing Range:
The Crown recommended 4.5 to 5 years in prison, while the defence argued for a 3.5-year sentence with an additional nine months for breaching a weapons prohibition order.
Judgment:
The court sentenced J.B. to 3.5 years for the firearm offences and an additional nine months for breaching a weapons prohibition order, to be served consecutively. After accounting for 529 days of pre-sentence custody (credited at 1.5 days per day served), the final sentence amounted to 25 months in custody. The court also imposed:
- Forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition,
- A lifetime weapons prohibition,
- An order for the collection of a DNA sample.
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but considered J.B.’s youth and background in determining the sentence, balancing the need for both deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation.
– decision of Madam Justice K.B. Corrick
02.24.2012
In R. v. M.C., 2012 ONSC 1259, M.C. was charged with drug trafficking and possession of an unlicensed handgun after police executed a search warrant at his residence and discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded handgun in the trunk of his car. M.C. challenged the validity of the search warrant, seeking to exclude the seized evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that the warrant was improperly issued and did not cover the search of his vehicle.
Key Issues:
- Validity of the Search Warrant: M.C. claimed that the search warrant was invalid because it was based on information from confidential informants, which he argued was not sufficiently corroborated.
- Scope of the Search Warrant: M.C. also argued that the warrant did not authorize a search of his vehicle, and thus, the search of the car and seizure of the gun constituted a Charter violation.
Court’s Findings:
- Warrant Issuance: The court upheld the validity of the search warrant. While much of the information came from informants, there was sufficient corroboration by police observations, and the informants had a history of providing reliable information.
- Vehicle Search: The court found that the search of M.C.’s vehicle was not authorized by the warrant, which was specifically limited to the residence. As the vehicle search was warrantless, it was presumptively unreasonable and violated M.C.’s section 8 Charter rights.
- Admissibility of Evidence: Despite the Charter violation, the court applied the three-part test from R. v. Grant to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. The court concluded that:
- The police acted in good faith, believing they had authority based on past case law.
- M.C. had a privacy interest in his vehicle, but this was not as strong as his interest in his home.
- The evidence, particularly the loaded handgun, was highly probative and involved serious offences.
Given the seriousness of the offence and the police’s good faith, the court admitted the evidence.
Conclusion:
The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the drugs and handgun seized during the search were admitted into evidence for trial.
– decision of Mr. Justice D.K. Gray
08.16.2010
“Bad Seeds: The True Story of Toronto’s Galloway Boys Street Gang” is a non-fiction book that delves into the rise and activities of one of Toronto’s most notorious street gangs, the Galloway Boys. This gang, originating in the Galloway neighborhood of Scarborough, became infamous for its involvement in violent crimes, drug trafficking, and gun violence, particularly during the early 2000s.
The book offers an in-depth examination of the social and economic factors that contributed to the gang’s formation, the internal dynamics of its members, and their interactions with rival gangs. It also explores the community’s struggles with gang violence, law enforcement’s efforts to dismantle the group, and the legal battles surrounding key gang members.
Through detailed accounts of specific incidents, including murders and drug deals, the book provides a grim look at urban gang life in Toronto. It highlights the impact of poverty, broken family structures, and systemic issues that contributed to the rise of the Galloway Boys, as well as the tragic consequences of gang involvement on individuals and communities alike.
– Book by Betsy Powell
03.17.2009
This case concerns the constitutionality of mandatory DNA collection orders for young offenders. It highlights the key legal arguments, the court’s reasoning, and the outcome. It effectively emphasizes the importance of individualized treatment for young offenders, consistent with the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The core of the decision lies in the court’s finding that the mandatory nature of DNA collection orders under sections 487.051(1) and 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code violates Section 8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and does not adequately account for the unique circumstances of young offenders.
This decision underscores the importance of applying individualized assessments, particularly for youth, in the legal process.
– decision of Madam Justice Cohen
04.28.2007
F.N. was sentenced to 13 months in jail, equivalent to her receiving one year and one month for each of the two offenses. Her plea brought the number of guilty pleas to four in connection with the case, while 12 other accused individuals awaited trial. This case highlighted the province’s commitment to prosecuting gang-related crimes as part of a broader investigation into the Galloway Boys’ violent rivalry with the Malvern Crew.
– article by Betsy Powell, Toronto Star