A.T. McKay

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, identity theft, and possession of counterfeit money.

He sought a reduced sentence, alleging his high-risk arrest at a gas station violated his Charter rights and that he suffered harsh pre-trial custody conditions, including an assault.

The court found no Charter breaches regarding the arrest but granted 60 days of enhanced credit for the assault in custody.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 45 months' imprisonment, reduced to 32 months going forward after pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of break and enter and two counts of breaching release terms.

Prior to sentencing, he brought an application alleging that his pre-sentence detention in segregation violated his rights under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, seeking enhanced credit for time served.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused had repeatedly requested to be placed in segregation despite offers for alternative housing, and that his medical needs were adequately addressed.

The court sentenced the accused to 18 months in custody, less standard 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 30 months of probation.

The accused, charged with impaired driving by drug, brought a pre-trial application seeking disclosure of the evaluating officer's 'rolling logs'.

The defence relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Stipo, which held that rolling logs were obviously relevant for disclosure.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Criminal Code prohibited such disclosure and that expert evidence demonstrated the logs were irrelevant.

The court heard expert testimony explaining that nonalignment between an officer's opinion and toxicology results does not indicate an unreliable evaluation due to various scientific factors.

The court concluded the rolling logs were not relevant to assessing the officer's evidence and that section 320.36 of the Criminal Code prohibits the disclosure of testing results related to other individuals.

The application for disclosure was dismissed.

The accused, a passenger in a vehicle stopped on a highway, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unlawful search after police discovered methamphetamine during an inventory search of the impounded vehicle.

The court found the accused was not detained while police investigated the driver, and the request for his identification did not constitute a seizure.

The court held the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the accused for possession based on drugs found in a common area of the car, rendering the subsequent search of his person lawful.

The Charter application was dismissed.

A young person was tried for multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against a younger sibling, along with a charge of uttering threats.

The complainant described repeated nighttime incidents in which the accused entered her bedroom and engaged in sexual touching, including digital penetration on one occasion.

The defence challenged reliability due to delay in reporting, alleged inconsistencies, and testimony from family members denying that the accused ever slept in the complainant’s room.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and principles governing assessment of child witness testimony, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence as detailed, logical, and compelling, and rejected the defence evidence.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine after police investigated a minor collision in a parking lot.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging unlawful arrest and search, which the court dismissed, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and the search was a valid incident to arrest.

At trial, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or drugs, resulting in an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he was unaware of the cocaine found in his sweatpants, finding him guilty of possession of cocaine.