Alison J. Wheeler

Vaughan Roberts pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The sentencing hearing considered the objective seriousness of the offence (possession linked to drug trafficking, flight from police) alongside significant mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and difficult pre-trial custody.

Crucially, the court treated a prior racist armed robbery attempt against the offender, where he acted in self-defence and was subsequently charged with murder (later dropped), as a significant attenuating circumstance.

The court also considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's life, which influenced the blending of sentencing objectives towards rehabilitation.

Despite the Crown seeking actual incarceration, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 538 days (approx. 18 months) after credit for pre-trial custody, followed by 18 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The accused, Thomas Donovan, applied to set aside his guilty plea to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, entered on April 5, 2022.

The application was based on his assertion that the drugs were not his and that he took the headphone case containing them from an acquaintance, Zach Pringle, leading to a claim of factual inaccuracy in the plea.

Despite the plea being voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, the court found valid grounds to set it aside in the interests of justice.

The court considered the arguable credibility of the accused's new account, the hearsay evidence from Mr. Pringle, the accused's reluctance to implicate Mr. Pringle, his motivation to plead guilty due to poor detention conditions, and his Indigenous background as a relevant factor.

The court concluded that restoring the presumption of innocence was in the interests of justice, allowing the accused to make full answer and defence.

An 18-year-old defendant pleaded guilty to mischief by sending bomb threats via digitized voice messages to a residential property and a group home, and to failure to comply with a youth probation order.

The defendant was on probation at the time of the offences.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with probation, finding that despite the defendant's significant youth record for serious offences and the seriousness of the conduct, a discharge was in the defendant's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The court emphasized the defendant's mental health diagnoses, genuine remorse, cooperation with police, engagement in rehabilitation programming, and the collateral consequences of converting the youth record to an adult record.

A young adult offender, M.M., pleaded guilty to theft under $5000 and breach of a youth sentence order, both committed shortly after her 18th birthday.

The Crown sought a conviction, while duty counsel sought a conditional discharge based on the collateral consequence that a conviction would convert M.M.'s significant youth record into an adult criminal record under section 119(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months' probation, finding that the discharge was in M.M.'s best interests and not contrary to the public interest, emphasizing rehabilitation and redemption for a young adult still in the process of maturing.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon, carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence, possession of a prohibited weapon, breach of four weapons prohibitions, driving while disqualified, and failing to comply with a probation order.

All charges arose from an incident in which an American visitor was pepper-sprayed in the face in Gananoque.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the perpetrator.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts except one, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Crown applied for a firearms prohibition order under section 111(5) of the Criminal Code against the respondent, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for discharging a firearm with intent to wound or maim, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of ammunition while prohibited, and possession of prohibited devices.

The respondent had a significant criminal history including convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and unauthorized possession of prohibited or restricted weapons.

The court found that the respondent suffered from significant mental illness that, when untreated, led to violent conflict and resulted in him firing a shotgun at police officers.

The respondent lacked insight into his illness and indicated he would stop taking prescribed medication if given the choice.

The court granted the prohibition order for the maximum period of five years.

The accused was charged with breach of probation for knowingly allowing her son to keep chickens and her granddaughter to keep mice at her house, contrary to probation conditions prohibiting her from owning, possessing, caring for, or providing shelter to animals, residing where animals are maintained, or possessing animals in any place she owns or resides.

The court found the accused not guilty, holding that she did not possess the animals, did not shelter them (having moved to a tent on nearby land), and therefore did not breach any of the three probation conditions.