Andrew David Midwood

The court sentenced Anden Alexander, convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, and flight from a peace officer.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence and the offender, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and canvassed the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less 92 days, to be served in the community, followed by two years' probation, and made ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a firearm following a planned home invasion that resulted in a fatal shooting and assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the use of a loaded prohibited firearm, the defendant's leadership role, and the severe impact on victims.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of adult criminal record, youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed an 11-year sentence, less credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

This decision concerns the sentencing of three defendants involved in a home invasion that resulted in a death and injury.

Trevor Kotzma and Michael Rodgers pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while Alexander Nicholas Mahon-Fernandes pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the violence inflicted, and the profound impact on victims.

Mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, were also weighed.

For Mahon-Fernandes, his lack of prior criminal record and significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail were particularly noted.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions for Kotzma and Rodgers, and imposed a penitentiary sentence for Mahon-Fernandes, slightly less than the Crown's request, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence despite his first-offender status.

The offender, Eric Wolfe Riedl, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and unauthorized possession of a loaded, restricted handgun.

The offences occurred during a traffic stop where police found cocaine and a loaded .22 calibre pistol with a tampered serial number in his rental vehicle.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and guns, and the tampered firearm.

Mitigating factors included the offender's relative youth, first-offender status (apart from a bail breach), guilty plea, and significant rehabilitation efforts since the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 months imprisonment, comprising three years for the firearm offence and one year consecutive for the drug offence, with credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code, against an accused whose girlfriend died from diabetic ketoacidosis.

The court found that the deceased was under the accused's charge and that his failure to summon medical aid, particularly by taking a sleeping pill that rendered him insensible, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was objectively foreseeable to a reasonable person, lacking specific medical knowledge of diabetes, that the deceased's symptoms would lead to death or permanent injury within the timeframe affected by the accused's inaction.

The accused was acquitted.

Thomas Chan was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault after fatally stabbing his father and gravely injuring his father's partner during a drug-induced psychotic episode from magic mushrooms.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, balancing the high gravity of the offences with the offender's diminished moral blameworthiness due to unforeseeable psychosis and his exemplary character.

The judge imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced by 1.5 years for pre-trial custody (including enhanced credit for solitary confinement and restrictive bail conditions), resulting in a net sentence of 3.5 years.

Thomas Chan, while in a drug-induced psychotic state after consuming magic mushrooms, fatally stabbed his father and gravely wounded his father's partner.

He was charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault, with the Crown seeking convictions for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The defence argued for a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, asserting that a pre-existing mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) contributed to the psychosis, making him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court applied a holistic approach, considering internal cause, continuing danger, and policy factors, and concluded that the psychosis was primarily caused by self-induced intoxication, not the MTBI as a "disease of the mind" for the purposes of s. 16.

Consequently, Chan was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and possession of marijuana following an incident in a parking lot where she struck a person with her vehicle.

The accused admitted to possession of marijuana but claimed self-defence for the dangerous driving charge.

The court found that the accused had been lured to a location where she was surrounded by a hostile group of twelve people, some of whom had previously assaulted her.

The court determined that the accused reasonably believed she faced a threat of force and that her actions in attempting to escape were reasonable in the circumstances.

The dangerous driving charge was dismissed on the basis of self-defence, but the accused was convicted of possession of marijuana.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation at a nightclub on Halloween.

The accused struck the complainant in the face with a glass she was holding, causing a laceration requiring 18 stitches.

The accused claimed she responded reflexively to a punch thrown by the complainant.

The court found there was an air of reality to the claim of consensual fight and determined the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict bodily harm.

The accused's instantaneous reflexive response, the fact that she too was injured by the broken glass, and the absence of any deliberate throwing of the glass supported her account.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood following a random sobriety check.

The defence challenged the arrest on grounds of Charter violations: alleged lack of reasonable grounds for arrest under s. 8, and alleged failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice under s. 10(b).

The Crown sought to admit breath sample analysis results.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest existed but found a breach of s. 10(b) rights when police failed to leave voicemail messages for chosen counsel and misrepresented the availability of those lawyers.

Under s. 24(2), the court admitted the breath sample evidence as the societal interest in adjudication on the merits outweighed the seriousness of the Charter breach.

The accused was convicted of the over-limit charge but acquitted of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding functional impairment.