Woman dead after stabbing in parking lot near shopping mall in Toronto
Toronto police say it happened just after 9:30 a.m. in the area of Parkway Forest Drive and Sheppard Avenue East near CF Fairview Mall in North York.
They say officers found a woman with stab wounds in a commercial parking lot.
Police say the woman was rushed to hospital where she was pronounced dead.
They say the homicide and missing persons unit is now investigating the case.
The stabbing marks the city's second homicide near a shopping mall today, following an early-morning shooting that left a man dead near Yorkdale Mall.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 17, 2025.
The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Chuck E. Cheese employee arrested in iconic mouse mask for using stolen credit card, police say
TALLAHASSEE — Wearing the furry mask of the iconic Chuck E. Cheese mascot mouse, an employee of the popular children's birthday destination was arrested for using a stolen credit card at one of the chain's Florida restaurants, police said. 'Chuck E, come with me Chuck E,' a police officer in Tallahassee told the suspect, 'stop resisting, you are being detained.' The arrest occurred Wednesday, according to the probable cause report from police, while photos from bystanders showed an officer removing the man's rodent mask — with its gray fur, exaggerated ears and perpetual smile — and placing it atop a Tallahassee Police Department vehicle. The investigation began when a woman called police to report that someone was using her child support Visa debit card, which she hadn't seen since a visit Chuck E. Cheese in late June, police records stated. Charges to the card were made at a smoke shop, grocery store and a Whataburger. The woman tracked down the suspect by going to the grocery store and viewing surveillance footage from the time her card was used, police records state. She recognized the man from the Chuck E. Cheese. When police officers arrived at the restaurant, one of them entered first to verify that the suspect was there. He was — and he wasn't wearing the mask. The suspect 'looked very nervous, he gazed at me with wide eyes and squared shoulders in a tensed demeaner,' a police officer later wrote in the probable cause report. The officer and another officer soon returned to the Chuck E. Cheese, where the suspect had since donned the rodent mask, police records stated. The officers asked another employee if the suspect was in the mouse suit. 'She shook her head up and down indicating yes,' the officer wrote.
CBS News
35 minutes ago
- CBS News
Concord police arrest suspect in multiple sexual assaults
Concord police said Thursday a man they believe is responsible for at least four sexual assaults and false imprisonments over the past several months has been arrested. Police arrested 24-year-old Daniel Alejandro Acosta-Montiel, who lived in Concord while allegedly committing the crimes. On Jan. 13, Acosta-Montiel allegedly followed a woman, grabbed her from behind, and sexually assaulted her. The following night, Acosta-Montiel allegedly used a stun gun on a female victim and sexually assaulted her. Police said approximately one month later, Acosta-Montiel was identified as the suspect who followed a female home and allegedly assaulted her in the front yard of her Concord residence. Police said a juvenile female also identified Acosta-Montiel as the suspect who allegedly sexually assaulted her in October. The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office charged Acosta-Montiel on July 10 with eight crimes related to sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment and battery. Concord police believe there may be more victims. Anyone with information can contact Detective Huffmaster at (925) 671-5080 or Concord police dispatch at (925) 671-3333.
