Alice Bradstreet

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

Sentencing for a guilty plea to robbery arising from a planned, violent takeover robbery of a cash business in which masked co-participants used a handgun, forcibly confined employees, and stole over $1 million, while the offender acted as the decoy driver.

The court treated the guilty plea, youth, family support, and some rehabilitative prospects as mitigating, but emphasized planning, anticipated violence, the scale of the theft, and the terror inflicted on the victims.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 21-month sentence consecutive to an existing sentence for a later home invasion robbery.

The court refused to grant Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions because the offender committed a serious new robbery while on house arrest bail.

The applicant brought a motion before the Court of Appeal.

Due to a non-publication order imposed at the bail hearing under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, as well as publication bans under s. 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code, the court's decision contains protected information.

Consequently, the full decision is withheld from online publication until the order ceases to be in effect, though it remains available at the court registry.

The offender pleaded guilty to break and enter and theft of a motor vehicle after acting as the getaway driver during a violent home invasion targeting a luxury vehicle.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the organized home invasion against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, and tragic background involving the loss of his brother.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, including one year of house arrest with GPS monitoring, followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder in 2009 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in her parole ineligibility period.

The court had previously determined there was a reasonable prospect the application would proceed and empanelled a jury.

After hearing evidence over twelve days, the jury reduced the applicant's parole eligibility date from May 16, 2032 to May 16, 2029, granting a three-year reduction in parole ineligibility.

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.

The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.

The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, reckless discharge of a firearm, killing a service animal, and possession of a loaded firearm.

The offences occurred over approximately 24 hours: the accused shot and killed the victim in his daughter's apartment after a physical altercation; the following day, he fired at a police officer attempting to arrest him; and subsequently shot and killed a police service dog during his apprehension.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a 14-year global sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission while providing detailed sentencing analysis for each offence, explaining how the principle of totality reduced what would otherwise have been a 23-year sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and failure to comply with a release order following a string of 16 convenience store robberies committed over four hours.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court considered the offender's background, including anti-Black racism and mental health issues, alongside the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun and robbery offences.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with enhanced credit granted for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns, leaving 633 days to serve.

Nicola Puddicombe, convicted of first-degree murder, applied for a reduction in her parole eligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge determined whether there was a reasonable prospect that a jury would reduce her parole ineligibility.

The court found that despite the cold-blooded nature of the murder and the applicant's initial denial of full responsibility, her significant progress in therapy, positive institutional conduct, and evolving insight into her role in the offence provided a reasonable likelihood of success before a jury.

The application to empanel a jury was granted.

The accused was charged with drug and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at a residence.

During the search, police found drugs and cash, and subsequently questioned the accused without providing rights to counsel or a caution, eliciting statements about vehicle keys.

The police used these statements to seize the keys and search two vehicles, locating firearms.

The court found egregious violations of the accused's ss. 8 and 10(b) Charter rights, noting that senior officers acted carelessly, showed blatant disregard for Charter rights, and misled the court.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The two offenders were convicted by a jury of a violent armed home invasion robbery and related firearms offences.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the planned home invasion and use of firearms, balanced against mitigating factors including the offenders' youthful status, expressions of remorse, and the significant impact of systemic anti-Black racism on their backgrounds as detailed in Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports.

The court applied the Morris framework to reduce their moral culpability and emphasize rehabilitation, sentencing the first offender to 9 years and the second offender to 7.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The defendant, Irby Lemus, was convicted of sexual interference and making and distributing child pornography involving a 14-year-old victim who became pregnant.

The court, after independently finding facts regarding the extent of the sexual interference and the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age, proceeded to sentencing.

The Crown sought 12-15 years, while the defence sought a stay or conditional sentence.

The court determined a base sentence of five years and six months, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the intimate nature of the illegal relationship, the resulting pregnancy, and the duration of the abuse.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of a criminal record, pro-social life, family support, and the collateral consequence of separation from his children.

A significant 18-month reduction was applied to the sentence due to a serious s. 7 Charter breach by the Crown, who deliberately failed to disclose material information during a bail review, misleading the court and attempting to interfere with the defendant's parental rights.

Egypt Morgan was sentenced for manslaughter after being jointly charged with first-degree murder.

The jury found her guilty of manslaughter, while her co-accused, Shamoi Palmer, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The victim, Jermaine Titus, was an innocent bystander killed by a bullet intended for another individual.

Morgan's role involved alerting Palmer to the victim's location, knowing Palmer possessed a firearm and intended to discharge it recklessly.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, the planned nature of Morgan's actions, the innocent victim, and her post-offence assistance to Palmer.

Mitigating factors included her status as a youthful first offender, family support, participation in rehabilitation programs, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, with credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 3 years, 9 months, and 21 days to serve.

During a judge-alone trial for attempted murder, the Crown brought an application to introduce Snapchat messages sent by an unavailable co-accused under the principled approach to hearsay.

The Crown sought to admit messages where the co-accused admitted to being a shooter, as well as messages allegedly identifying the accused as the driver and renter of the vehicle used in the shooting.

The court admitted the messages regarding the co-accused's own involvement, finding threshold reliability was met through strong corroborative evidence.

However, the court excluded the messages implicating the accused, finding they lacked threshold reliability due to significant hearsay dangers of narration, ambiguity, and sincerity.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a targeted shooting where the victim was shot at 28 times but survived.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell tower data, and the accused's subsequent use of the rental vehicle involved in the shooting.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, assessing whether guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the driver during the shooting, noting inconsistencies in the phone records and alternative reasonable inferences.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.

This decision addresses the admissibility of a photograph in a criminal trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit a photograph alleged to depict the accused at the scene of a shooting, despite the defence's argument that it lacked authentication due to informer privilege and the absence of a direct authenticating witness.

The court ruled that the photograph was admissible, finding it had been authenticated by circumstantial evidence through comparison with other reliable video and photographic evidence.

Concerns regarding the photo's origin or potential tampering were deemed matters of weight for the trier of fact, not admissibility.

The accused, Kevin George, was sentenced for discharging a firearm with intent and failing to comply with a release order, stemming from a shooting at his child's birthday party where he fired six rounds, injuring two children and another man.

The court stayed aggravated assault convictions under the Kienapple principle.

The judge considered the serious aggravating factors, including the use of a handgun, the large number of people imperiled (especially children), the breach of bail, and the number of shots fired.

While acknowledging the devastating impact of the injuries, the court found that causation for the injuries was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused, thus not treating them as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included family support, employment efforts, youth, and the limited impact of race and social context on moral culpability.

The court imposed a sentence of 11 years in penitentiary, reduced by 10.5 months for pre-sentence custody, for a net sentence of 10 years, 1.5 months, to be served concurrently with a 12-month sentence for the bail breach.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 39 months and 23 days, well above the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that a significant portion of the delay should be attributed to the defence due to a late re-election and failure to promptly request an Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the defence's actions were legitimate responses to the Crown's ongoing failure to make timely disclosure, particularly regarding a phone extraction and the related ITO.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and stayed the proceedings.

Kevin George was charged with 14 criminal offences following a shootout at his child's birthday party.

The court found him guilty of discharging a firearm with intent at Demar Cadogan and Tianna Green, aggravated assault on Demar Cadogan and Tianna Green, and failing to comply with a release order.

He was found not guilty of attempted murder, other discharge firearm/aggravated assault counts, and firearm possession charges due to insufficient evidence regarding party liability, specific intent to kill, or proof of firearm type/licensing.

The court extensively analyzed circumstantial evidence for identity and the principles of party liability.

During his criminal trial for a firearms offence, the accused refused to answer a question during cross-examination about the identity of a person who gave him a satchel, citing fears for his safety.

The Crown brought a motion to hold him in contempt of court.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to seriously interfere with the administration of justice.

The court also noted that the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to consult counsel before being required to answer.