R. v. O.S., 2022 ONSC 3935
In the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R. v. O.S., the accused was charged with first degree murder and attempted murder. The accused went to a massage parlour in Toronto with a sword concealed under his coat. When he entered the reception area, he found and repeatedly stabbed the front desk female employee. The employee died on the scene from 42 stab wounds. Another female employee, after hearing the attack, went to the reception area and confronted the accused. The accused chased the employee, calling her a “stupid whore.” She managed to gain control of the sword and stabbed him in the back, suffering a stab to the chest in the process.
When the police arrived at the scene, they discovered the accused’s sword had the words “Thot Slayer” inscribed upon the blade. They also discovered a plastic bag containing the accused’s driver’s license, a knife sharpening stone, and a note that had the words “Long Live the Incel Rebellion” written on it. The accused was charged with first degree murder with two classifications: planned and deliberate (s. 231(2)) and death caused when committing terrorist activity (s. 231(6.01)). The applicant argued that the combined charges of ss. 231(2) and (6.01) violates his section 7 and section 11(b) Charter rights. Section 7 of the Charter enumerates the right to life, liberty and security of the person; while section 11(d) guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. The accused argued that his conviction by jury was unclear, as he did not understand the reason for which he was convicted. The Court rejected his application, as previous case law has shown repeatedly that juries may arrive to the same conclusion with different reasons. The application for review was dismissed.
R. v. C.Z., 2022 ONCJ 152
In the Ontario Court of Justice case of R. v. C.Z., the accused was 16 when he was charged with dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. A family of five was on the front lawn of their house, next to a street with a designated speed limit of 40 km/h. The accused’s girlfriend lived on the same street. The accused, speeding at 100 km/h, lost control of the car, hit and killed two children as well as injuring one adult.
A pre-sentence report was prepared. The accused had 47 letters of reference and support from family, teachers, and friends. He had excellent grades in school, is successful in extra-curricular activities, and has been accepted into a university. He has taken therapy sessions since the incident and has expressed genuine remorse and insight into his offences. As young persons have a diminished moral blameworthiness and/or culpability as their cognitive abilities are not fully developed, there is more emphasis placed on rehabilitation. Due to the seriousness of the offence, the Court deemed a custodial sentence necessary. The offender was sentenced to 12 months in open custody, followed by 6 months in the community. Ancillary orders of a six-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a youth probation of one year after the completion of his community supervision.
R. v. R.O., 2022 ONSC 1487
In the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R. v. R.O., the accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder under s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused was 14 years old at the time of the offence. After a history of misunderstandings and altercations that involved several other youths, the accused stabbed the victim in the back. The accused had believed his brother to be in danger at the time but admits that his conduct was unreasonable and unjustified. He also admitted that he intended to cause serious bodily harm and was reckless whether death occurred or not.
There were six victim impact statements filed. The accused and his brother were involved in selling illicit narcotics. He has had a traumatic and unstable childhood and family life, which includes parental mental health difficulties, addiction issues, domestic violence, criminality, and interventions from the Children’s Aid Society. He appears to have accepted responsibility and is remorseful about his actions. The offender was sentenced to seven years, with four years in custody and three years under conditional supervision. There was a no-contact order, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.