Benjamin Moss

Joseph Marcel Kovacs was found guilty by a jury of three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of forcible confinement, all involving intimate partner violence against his former partner over four years.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less five days imprisonment, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation due to the gravity of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and the need to protect the public.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given the circumstances.

Joseph Kovacs, convicted of five counts of violence, brought a post-conviction application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay minimally exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown successfully argued that a 35-day jury blackout period due to the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance, which, when deducted, brought the delay below the ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate that the remaining delay was unreasonable, as they did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or put the court on timely notice of s. 11(b) concerns.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, charged with serious drug offences, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The court found that counsel was essential for a fair trial due to the complexity of the case, the accused's limited English, and the severe potential consequences.

Despite vague financial evidence, the court accepted that the accused, a gig economy worker, lacked the means to afford the substantial retainers required by private counsel.

The application was granted, and proceedings were stayed until funding is provided, subject to the accused contributing $5,000.

The court delivered reasons for sentence for Bradley Screen, who pleaded guilty to an offence carrying a maximum 10-year imprisonment.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record dating back to 2009 and a considerable amount of money obtained.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility.

The court accepted a joint submission from Crown and defence, sentencing Mr. Screen to eight months in jail, consecutive to his current sentence, followed by 12 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a $200 victim fine surcharge with 24 months to pay.

Following conviction after trial for a violent home invasion robbery involving firearms, the offender was sentenced for multiple offences including armed robbery, aggravated assault, discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life, unlawful confinement, and several firearms possession offences.

During the robbery three armed assailants entered an apartment, confined the victim, and shot him in the back as he attempted to flee, causing life‑threatening injuries.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in home invasion and gun crimes.

Considering aggravating factors such as the use of firearms, the grievous injuries inflicted, and the offender’s prior youth record and breach of a firearms prohibition, the court imposed a significant penitentiary sentence within the established range for home invasion offences.

During a preliminary inquiry into charges including attempted murder, the Crown sought to introduce a written report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police indicating that a DNA specimen from a jacket found at the crime scene matched the accused Russell Bullock on the National DNA Data Bank.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the report, arguing inadequate notice was given and that the evidence was not credible or trustworthy.

The court ruled the report admissible under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code, finding that the legislative framework governing the National DNA Databank and the statutory duties of the RCMP Commissioner provided sufficient credibility and trustworthiness to the evidence at the preliminary inquiry stage.

The Crown brought a K.G.B. application seeking to admit two prior out‑of‑court statements made by an alleged accomplice who recanted at trial.

The statements included an audio‑recorded confession describing multiple robberies and a subsequent identification of the accused as a participant.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, considering necessity and threshold reliability under the framework articulated in Khelawon and related authorities.

Although the statements were unsworn and not fully video‑recorded, the declarant testified and was available for cross‑examination, and comparator evidence allowed the trier of fact to assess accuracy.

The court held that these factors sufficiently addressed the hearsay dangers and granted the Crown’s application to admit both statements for the truth of their contents.