Alexander Morris

The defendant was serving a conditional sentence when he was charged with new offences.

At the breach hearing, the Crown sought to rely on the supervisor's report, which was served on the defence only one day prior.

The defence argued this did not constitute reasonable notice under s. 742.6(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that because the underlying police information attached to the report had been fully disclosed well in advance, the defence was not taken by surprise.

The court found that reasonable notice had been given and admitted the report.

The offender pled guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (108 grams).

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence reduced to 8 years for harsh pre-trial conditions, while the defence sought 4-5 years less time served plus additional credit for lockdowns and triple bunking.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence was 7 years, reflecting the mid-level commercial quantity and the offender's prior record, balanced against his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential.

After applying 29 months of standard pre-sentence custody credit and an additional 12 months of Duncan/Marshall credit for severe lockdown and triple-bunking conditions, the net sentence imposed was 43 months.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking 1279 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed mitigating factors, including the defendant's minor role, remorse, and compliance with house arrest, against the significant quantity of cocaine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence would not adequately address denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a three-year custodial sentence.

The Indigenous offender pled guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and breach of a release order.

The court considered Gladue factors, noting the offender's history of intergenerational trauma, addiction, and efforts toward rehabilitation.

Recognizing the offender as a low-level addict trafficker and factoring in exceptionally punitive pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19, the court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

This decision from a Gardiner hearing addresses factual determinations for sentencing after Curtis Murray and Corey Murray were convicted of second-degree murder.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, motivated by revenge against a specific group, and that the victim was killed under the mistaken belief he was part of that group.

While the judge's legal view was that these facts would typically constitute first-degree murder, the jury's verdict of second-degree murder was respected.

The court also determined that Curtis Murray was the leader and instigator, with Corey Murray being a willing but more of a follower, which was considered a mitigating factor for Corey.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on the Crown's failure to make proper and timely disclosure of relevant video surveillance evidence, and the loss of some of that evidence.

The court found that the police were unacceptably negligent in failing to preserve all relevant video footage, resulting in a breach of the accused's rights under section 7 of the Charter.

However, the court concluded that the prejudice to the accused was minimal and could be adequately addressed by alternative remedies, including adjournments and a specific jury instruction regarding the lost evidence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Jorge Gomes was sentenced for two counts of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and causing bodily harm.

The court considered the severe and permanent injuries sustained by two victims, the offender's lack of prior criminal record, and the potential collateral immigration consequences as a permanent resident.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, particularly given the urban setting and the high blood alcohol concentration, the court imposed a sentence of three years in custody concurrently for each count, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

The court rejected a shorter sentence to avoid deportation, affirming that immigration consequences cannot justify an otherwise unfit sentence.

The accused was charged with two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm after his pick-up truck struck two pedestrians crossing a four-lane road.

The accused admitted to driving the vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration between 150mg and 185mg per 100ml of blood.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, which contributed to his excessive speed and failure to notice the highly visible pedestrians in time to avoid the collision.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicants, Nicola Nero, Dean Wiwchar, and Martino Caputo, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of their right to a trial within a reasonable time.

This application followed their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay (considering it collectively for co-accused), and whether the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances (discrete events such as preliminary inquiry issues, counsel unavailability, interlocutory appeals, and extensive disclosure from multiple police forces) or case complexity.

The court found that after deducting periods attributable to defence delay, the net delay for each applicant was below the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

Furthermore, the court determined that the case's inherent complexity, the involvement of multiple defendants and prosecutions, voluminous disclosure from various police agencies, and an international aspect constituted exceptional circumstances justifying any delay beyond the ceiling.

The court also considered the case as transitional, noting the parties' reasonable reliance on the law as it existed prior to Jordan.

Consequently, the applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed, as no breach of the applicants' s. 11(b) rights was demonstrated.

The applicants were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to murder and first-degree murder.

Prior to sentencing, they applied for a stay of the conspiracy count, arguing that entering convictions for both offences would violate the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offences lacked both the factual and legal nexus required to engage the rule.

The conspiracy was complete weeks before the murder, and the legal elements of the offences protect different societal interests.