A. Mamo

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and two counts of possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The firearm, an overcapacity magazine, and ammunition were found in his bedroom.

The court considered the aggravating factors of his prior record, the defaced serial number, the overcapacity magazine, and the breach of two prohibition orders.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, supportive family, strict bail conditions, and harsh presentence custody conditions (frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking).

The court imposed a total sentence of 39 months, which was reduced to 28 months after applying credits for presentence custody, harsh conditions, and time spent on strict bail.

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.

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.