A. Tran

This sentencing decision addresses whether "Duncan credit" for harsh pre-trial custody conditions can reduce a sentence below a mandatory minimum, specifically for robbery with a firearm.

The court found that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *R. v. Hilbach* undermined the rationale for applying Duncan credit to reduce mandatory minimum sentences.

The court distinguished Duncan credit as a mitigating factor from "Summers credit" (statutory pre-sentence custody credit), concluding that mitigating factors cannot reduce a sentence below a constitutional mandatory minimum.

The defendant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment for robbery with a firearm, with credit for pre-trial custody.

Tarrique Gordon was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old.

The court addressed the constitutional invalidity of mandatory minimum sentences and applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the sexual assault conviction, sentencing only for sexual interference.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors such as vaginal penetration, significant victim impact, and the offender's disregard for pleas to stop, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first-time offender status, family support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court also gave serious consideration to the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence exceeding six months, ultimately imposing a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The parties met in person after communicating via social media.

The accused admitted to intentional sexual touching but claimed the complainant consented.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence as implausible and inconsistent.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, concluding that she did not consent and that the accused did not have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The accused was tried on a seven-count indictment including assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault by wounding, uttering a death threat, forcible confinement, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused violently assaulted him during a gathering after a dispute over a drug-related debt, including slapping, punching, and stabbing him with a knife, causing injuries including a puncture wound requiring stitches.

The court rejected defence evidence that the violence was consensual “rough-housing” and found the complainant credible and corroborated by physical evidence and witnesses.

Circumstantial and direct evidence also established that the accused was engaged in commercial cocaine trafficking and that $24,000 seized from him constituted proceeds of that trafficking.

The accused was acquitted of uttering threats and forcible confinement, but convicted of assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault by wounding, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offender pleaded guilty to mischief to property exceeding $5,000 and common nuisance through endangerment arising from breaking windows at Toronto Police Service headquarters during G20 protests in June 2010.

The Crown sought 6-8 months incarceration; defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 60 days intermittent custody followed by one year probation with restitution of $2,500 and 100 hours community service, finding that while general deterrence and denunciation required imprisonment, the offender's personal circumstances, genuine contrition, first-offender status, and strict bail conditions warranted a reduced custodial sentence served intermittently rather than a conditional sentence.