Angus Kerr McLeod

The accused pleaded guilty to several offences, including break and enter to steal a firearm, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

Following the theft, the accused crashed the stolen motorcycle and sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.

The accused brought a Charter challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2)(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, given his medical condition and vulnerability in custody.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the one-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused or in reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

The court imposed a global sentence of one year imprisonment, noting the correctional facility could accommodate the accused's medical needs.

The accused, who is HIV-positive with an undetectable viral load, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for failing to disclose her status to three different complainants before engaging in sexual activity.

For the count involving oral sex, the court found no realistic possibility of transmission and acquitted the accused.

For the count involving unprotected vaginal intercourse, the court found a realistic possibility of transmission existed despite the undetectable viral load, vitiating consent, and found the accused guilty.

For the final count, the court acquitted the accused because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a condom was not used, given the complainant's credibility issues.

Following a guilty plea to aggravated assault, the Crown brought a dangerous offender application under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the offender posed a moderate to high risk of violent and sexual recidivism due to coercive sexual preference, substance dependence, and mixed personality disorder.

While the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) were met, the offender rebutted the presumption of an indeterminate sentence by demonstrating that a determinate sentence combined with intensive treatment and long‑term supervision could adequately protect the public.

The court accepted the joint submission that a fixed penitentiary sentence coupled with a Long‑Term Supervision Order would manage the risk.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment followed by a ten‑year Long‑Term Supervision Order.

The offender, a bookkeeper, pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 for stealing approximately $395,000 from her employers over several years.

The Crown sought 4 to 6 months of incarceration, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence for large-scale employee thefts involving a breach of trust.

Applying the factors from R. v. Bogart, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 5 months of incarceration followed by two years of probation, along with restitution orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, production of marijuana, and possession of brass knuckles.

Police executing a search warrant discovered 451 marijuana plants, seeds, and sophisticated growing equipment in the offender’s residence.

The offender had a prior conviction for marijuana production and had previously received a conditional sentence.

The court held that the scale of the operation, the residential setting, the presence of a weapon, and the offender’s prior similar conviction required a custodial sentence to achieve denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inappropriate given the recidivist conduct.