Alexandra Mamo

The accused, Jaime Hodge, was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and the established sentencing range of three to five years for similar amounts.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, compliance with release terms, and a "horrific" background involving abuse and family trauma.

Aggravating factors included the sophisticated concealment and high purity of the cocaine.

The court gave limited weight to Gladue factors due to insufficient evidence of their contextual impact on the accused's moral culpability.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, with credit for one month of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 35 months, along with a 10-year and life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender, a 24-year-old first offender, was convicted of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the firearm and drugs, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, lack of record, remorse, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and totality, followed by 24 months of probation.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face a murder charge in Tennessee.

The respondent argued that his telephone confession to a US detective while he was in Canada constituted 'evidence gathered in Canada' under s. 32(2) of the Extradition Act, and should be excluded under the Charter.

The court held that evidence obtained by a foreign police officer via telephone from a person in Canada is gathered in the foreign jurisdiction, not in Canada.

The committal order was granted.

In an addendum to the original reasons for judgment, the court clarified that consent was not a defence in law to the charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

Because the complainant was 14 years old and the accused was 21, the age difference exceeded five years, triggering the application of section 150.1(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a 21-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of recognizance after engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old complainant who had a profound intellectual disability.

The court found that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent and that the accused was wilfully blind to her incapacity, failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

Furthermore, the court rejected the accused's mistake of age defence, finding he ignored obvious warning signs regarding her age and developmental level and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain her true age.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

During a trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the Crown applied to admit expert evidence from a clinical psychologist regarding the suggestibility and acquiescence to leading questions of the complainant, who suffers from intellectual disabilities.

The court applied the Mohan criteria for the admission of expert evidence, focusing on the necessity requirement.

The court held that the suggestibility of a person functioning at a 4-7 year old cognitive level is a matter of common sense and judicial experience, and therefore expert evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police entered a short-term rental condominium unit without a warrant to arrest him for fraud.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit and that the warrantless entry and subsequent search of a suitcase violated his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

Alternatively, the court found the Crown failed to prove knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, a 24-year-old Antiguan national, pled guilty to importing 4,322 grams of cocaine into Canada concealed in false-bottomed suitcases.

She travelled with her three-year-old daughter and co-accused Teesha Thomas, who was also carrying cocaine.

The accused was arrested at the border and has been in pre-trial detention since May 9, 2015.

The Crown sought seven years imprisonment; the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of 66 months (5.5 years) imprisonment, with credit for 223 days of pre-trial detention at an enhanced rate, resulting in a further 55 months to be served.

The court also imposed a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a $200 victim fine surcharge payable within two years.