Ayesha Abbasi

The applicant, Gurjit Dosanjh, sought a review of a detention order issued by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing for possessing a loaded firearm.

The Superior Court found that the bail justice erred by excessively focusing on the release plan and surety suitability, and by failing to adequately consider the weakness of the Crown's case, which lacked evidence connecting the applicant directly to the firearm.

The court emphasized that even in reverse onus situations, the strength of the Crown's allegations must inform the required release plan.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released.

The defendant, Sukhmanpreet Singh, pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability (17 years old) and the nature of the assaults committed in concert with others, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, efforts to address drug addiction, remorse, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The central issue was whether to impose a conditional discharge, as sought by the defence due to potential immigration consequences, or a conviction with time served, as sought by the Crown.

The court ultimately imposed a sentence of time served (6 months less 1 day) and 12 months probation, concluding that a discharge was not appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the paramount need for denunciation and general deterrence in cases involving abuse of minors.

The court emphasized that immigration consequences, while relevant, should not dictate a sentence that is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

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.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order on charges including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the proposal of new, closer sureties and the resolution of numerous outstanding breach charges.

Applying the principles from R. v. Zora, the court considered the applicant's history of bail breaches in the context of his drug addiction.

The court concluded that a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and substantial sureties adequately addressed the secondary and tertiary grounds, and granted the applicant's release.

The accused was arrested for domestic assault while sitting in his car parked in his driveway.

Following the arrest, a police officer searched the car and found heroin in the centre console.

The accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude the heroin under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the search violated his s. 8 rights.

The court found the officer's stated reasons for the search—related to the accused's demeanour—were not objectively reasonable and the search was not truly incidental to the arrest for domestic assault.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the Charter breach was serious and the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was granted and the heroin was excluded.