Alana Pasut

This decision concerns an annual sentence review under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for M.L., who had previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) sentence.

M.L. sought release under conditional supervision, arguing significant progress in rehabilitation despite being transferred to an adult correctional facility where appropriate youth programming was unavailable.

The Crown sought to confirm the original sentence.

The court found that M.L. had met the evidentiary burden to justify a change in sentence, demonstrating exceptional commitment to rehabilitation despite challenging circumstances.

The court ordered M.L.'s release from custody to conditional supervision, emphasizing that this decision best advanced both the young person's needs and the long-term protection of society through rehabilitation, and imposed strict conditions to ensure accountability and continued progress.

A young person, P.W., was sentenced for multiple firearms-related offences and breaches of court orders, including careless use of a firearm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and possession of a prohibited firearm.

The charges stemmed from two separate incidents, one involving the possession of a sawed-off shotgun and another where a 14-year-old victim sustained a devastating brain injury from a gunshot.

The court applied the principles of youth sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

Accepting a joint submission from Crown and defence, the court imposed a one-year custody and supervision order (eight months open custody, four months supervision), with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown applied to disqualify a lawyer, Mr. Goldstein, from assisting in the defence of Ms. Willett, the wife of his former client, Mr. Willett, whose trial was severed from hers.

The Crown argued a realistic risk of conflict of interest due to Mr. Goldstein's duties to his former client (Mr. Willett, whose appeal was pending) and his current client (Ms. Willett).

Ms. Willett and Mr. Willett asserted a joint defence and waived confidentiality, having received independent legal advice.

The court found a substantial risk that Ms. Willett's defence could inculpate Mr. Willett, undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application to remove Mr. Goldstein was granted.

Deion Campbell was found guilty by a jury of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, following acquittals on aggravated assault and assault with a weapon charges.

In sentencing, the court considered mitigating factors including the possibility of self-defence, a positive pre-sentence report, stable family, no criminal record, and efforts towards education and employment.

Aggravating factors included the public location of the offence, the escalation caused by brandishing the knife, and ongoing non-medicinal marijuana use.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, including conditions such as a non-communication order, a prohibition from attending Humber College (unless registered), a 10-year weapon prohibition, and a mandatory $200 victim surcharge.

A request for a DNA sample order was declined.