Amy Mountjoy

The court sentenced A.K. following a jury conviction for four weapons-related offences under the Criminal Code, including possession of a 3D-printed handgun, silencer, extended magazines, and ammunition.

The court reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors, including the arsenal's seriousness, the offender's youth and difficult background, and the absence of public use of the weapon.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding a custodial sentence necessary but imposed a total of 30 months' incarceration, reduced for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The defendants, jointly charged with firearms offences, brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant and exclude seized firearms.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to search the specific condominium unit where the firearms were found, thus quashing the warrant and finding a Section 8 Charter breach.

However, applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the offences, the police's good faith, and the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after a trailer he negligently attached to a van detached, striking and killing a cyclist.

The offender saw the collision but drove away.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victim's family, the offender's high moral blameworthiness, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 6 years in custody, reduced by Summers, Marshall, and Downes credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 1 year and 1 month left to serve, plus a 10-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain at the scene, possession of stolen property, and breaching bail conditions after a stolen trailer detached from his van and fatally struck a cyclist.

The Crown relied on the testimony of the accused's girlfriend, a Vetrovec witness, which the court found was sufficiently corroborated by video and circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of criminal negligence causing death for failing to attach safety chains, failing to remain at the scene, and breaching bail, but acquitted him of possessing the stolen van.

This is a sentencing decision for Sakia Mojadiddi, who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000, defrauding 47 victims of over $1 million over a decade.

The fraud involved falsely promising refugee sponsorship through a charitable organization, exploiting vulnerable individuals and abusing a position of trust.

The Crown sought 4-4.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year prohibition on managing others' property, restitution of $946,083.99, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,077,584.00, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds, finding the sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness, while also considering mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, age, and health, but not reducing the sentence further due to COVID-19 given measures in federal institutions.

The applicant, Shayan Syed, sought bail release under s. 522(1) of the Criminal Code after being charged with first-degree murder.

The court considered the secondary ground for detention, focusing on the protection and safety of the public.

Despite a proposed house arrest plan with his mother as surety and electronic monitoring, the court found the applicant presented a high risk due to violent tendencies, unpredictability, a history of violence (assault, uttering threats, breaches of court orders), and unmanaged schizophrenia and psychosis exacerbated by drug use.

The proposed surety's credibility was severely damaged by her denial of a prior threat incident involving the applicant, to which he had pled guilty.

The court dismissed the bail application, concluding the applicant failed to satisfy the secondary ground.

Jeremy Kandhai pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with accessible ammunition and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The sentencing was expedited due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the 30 months (45 months with 1.5x credit) pre-trial custody, enhanced credit for lockdowns, an early guilty plea, and an assault suffered by the accused in custody.

The judge determined that the appropriate overall disposition was time served, emphasizing the increased hardship of incarceration during the pandemic as a significant factor.

A young person pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offence involved a coordinated robbery of a marijuana dispensary where the victim was shot in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles under the YCJA, including the requirement to consider alternatives to custody.

Despite the serious nature of the offence and the Crown's request for 12-15 months custody, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years probation with strict conditions, crediting the young person's 171 days of pre-trial custody as equivalent to over 8.5 months.

The decision emphasized rehabilitation, the young person's positive institutional conduct, supportive family circumstances, and concerns regarding the overrepresentation of young Black people in custody.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or the exclusion of a firearm from evidence.

He alleged that police violated his s. 7 rights by using excessive force (tasering him three times) during his arrest, and his s. 8 rights by unreasonably using a breaching shotgun to enter his residence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police's use of the taser was objectively reasonable given the exigent circumstances of the applicant fleeing with a firearm and failing to comply with commands.

The court also found the use of the breaching shotgun was reasonable due to the dynamic and high-risk situation.

The court further held that even if there were Charter breaches, neither a stay of proceedings nor the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) would be appropriate.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood following a single-vehicle accident on January 31, 2017.

The Crown established that the defendant was found in the driver's seat of a severely damaged vehicle that had travelled over 150 meters off the road.

The defendant's blood alcohol content was measured at 220 milligrams at 2:10 and 3:01 a.m., which toxicological evidence interpolated back to 220-260 milligrams at the time of the accident.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding the right to counsel and found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The applicant, Daniel Veldman, brought a motion for a stay of charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion as 43 months, 18 days.

After subtracting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was found to be 29 months, 24.5 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have or that he took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings.

Furthermore, considering the seriousness of the charges (including sexual assault, extortion, and uttering threats) and the public interest, and applying a contextual analysis for this transitional case (charges laid pre-Jordan), the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings.

The accused, S.P., was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching against his stepdaughter, B.V. The allegations involved inappropriate touching over clothing in B.V.'s bedroom, a 'spooning' incident on a couch, and an unduly long hug during a vacation.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, noting inconsistencies in B.V.'s disclosure process and K.M.'s testimony, as well as the accused's questionable explanations for his conduct.

Applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found that the Crown had not met its burden, emphasizing that the mere fact of a complaint does not boost the Crown's case and that the 'believe the victim' slogan has no place in a criminal trial.

The charges were dismissed, and acquittals were entered.

The accused, Daniel Veldman, brought an application seeking a finding that the interviewing officer violated his s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of choice.

The Crown had initially sought a ruling on the voluntariness of Veldman's videotaped statement, but the defence conceded voluntariness.

The court dismissed Veldman's Charter application, finding that his preferred counsel was not a lawyer and that Veldman had unequivocally waived his right to counsel by insisting on giving a statement despite being offered duty counsel multiple times and advised not to speak by duty counsel.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath testing results, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded a section 10(b) violation.

The court dismissed the application regarding sections 9 and 10(a), finding no violations.

On the conceded section 10(b) breach, the court applied the three-stage test from R. v. Grant and determined that the breath sample results should not be excluded, considering the good faith efforts of police, the minimal intrusiveness of breath sampling, and the public interest in curbing impaired driving.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

At trial, the accused sought to exclude breath test results on the basis of alleged violations of Charter rights under sections 9 and 10(b).

The accused argued that placement in the rear of the police cruiser for the approved screening device test violated the right to be free from arbitrary detention, and that the delay in providing rights to counsel violated the right to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 9 rights, as the detention was reasonably justified by officer and public safety concerns.

The court also found no breach of section 10(b) rights, as the four-minute delay between arrest and provision of rights to counsel was justified by necessary safety precautions and operational requirements.

The breath test results were admitted and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days to be served intermittently, followed by one year of probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, attendance at sexual offender treatment, and a 500-meter exclusion zone.

The court found that while the conditions for a conditional sentence were technically met, the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence required incarceration.

The accused, Oswald Poyser, was convicted by a jury of uttering threats to Caryn Humphrey, contrary to s. 264.1(a) of the Criminal Code.

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

The threats, which included demeaning and degrading language, occurred over a nine-month period within an intimate relationship.

The court found that the jury's verdict implied the accused sent multiple threatening messages.

Despite mitigating factors such as the accused being a 27-year-old father, a small business owner, respected in the community, and having completed domestic abuse counselling, the court determined that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest, especially given a prior conditional discharge for Trafficking in Stolen Property.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation and a 10-year s. 110 order.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charge was laid on December 12, 2015, with trial scheduled for January 15-16, 2017, resulting in a total delay of approximately 12 months and 4 days.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27.

Although the Crown failed to provide timely disclosure of the breath video (a critical piece of evidence in a refuse breath sample case), and defence counsel did not proactively pursue pre-trial procedures, the net delay fell well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court found that the defence failed to establish that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, and dismissed the application.