Breese Davies

Sentencing for offences involving possession of a handgun without a licence or registration certificate, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The accused was arrested in a public place with a handgun, ammunition incompatible with the firearm, drugs, and multiple cell phones while on bail.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public in handgun cases, while also considering the offender’s youth, rehabilitative efforts, supportive community ties, and positive pre‑sentence report.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as insufficient to meet sentencing objectives but determined that a penitentiary sentence was unnecessary.

A total custodial sentence of 21 months was imposed, reduced after credit for pre‑sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused faced charges for trafficking crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases arranged through a police cold call.

After the Crown’s case, the accused conceded the evidence established guilt but applied for a stay based on entrapment.

The court held that the police lacked reasonable suspicion before contacting the accused because the investigation relied on an unverified confidential tip with no information about reliability, currency, or source credibility.

The undercover officer’s immediate request to purchase a specific quantity of drugs constituted an opportunity to commit an offence rather than a preliminary investigative step.

As the opportunity was provided without reasonable suspicion, the conduct amounted to entrapment and the proceedings were stayed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and threatening death, as well as his sentence and designation as a long term offender.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting and instructing the jury on bad character evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence was necessary narrative and largely elicited by the defence.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal due to a procedural fairness error where the trial judge denied submissions on whether the offences constituted serious personal injury offences.

However, the Court found the offences met the statutory definition and imposed the same sentence, adjusting the community supervision order to reflect time already served.

In a pair of extradition appeals, the Court held that surrender of Canadian citizens to the United States on terrorism-related charges did not unjustifiably infringe mobility rights under s. 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court reaffirmed that extradition generally constitutes a marginal limitation on the right to remain in Canada and that ministerial balancing under the established multi-factor framework attracts substantial deference.

It rejected arguments that weak foreign jurisdiction or feasible domestic prosecution should be near-dispositive limits on surrender.

The Court also held that procedural fairness did not require the Minister to obtain and disclose prosecutorial assessments about whether to proceed domestically.

The surrender decisions were found reasonable on the record, and both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to simple robbery and was sentenced to 30 months in prison based on a joint submission.

He appealed his sentence, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer allegedly failed to follow instructions to immediately accept an earlier, more lenient plea offer from the Crown before seeking bail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the lawyer's evidence more credible that the appellant had insisted on seeking bail first due to severe withdrawal symptoms.

The court also rejected arguments that counsel should have advocated for a return to the original offer or a reduced sentence based on inadequate medical treatment in custody.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a scheduled Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) hearing on the grounds that its key psychiatric witness, Dr. McDonald, was unavailable.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the Crown had failed to exercise due diligence in securing the witness's attendance despite having known the hearing date for eight months.

The court noted that the accused had made significant progress in treatment and rehabilitation since his release on bail, and that the Crown had failed to meet the established test for adjournment under R. v. Darville.

The court proceeded to sentencing based on the accused's guilty pleas.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for a robbery committed at an ATM, based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

On appeal, he sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that his treating psychiatrists had ruled out schizophrenia and that his symptoms were likely caused by a substance-induced psychosis.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that the NCRMD verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice since self-induced intoxication cannot support such a verdict.

The appeal was allowed, the NCRMD verdict was set aside, and a conviction for robbery was entered with a sentence of one day's imprisonment, given the seven years the appellant had already spent in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after a sudden and unprovoked knife attack on a stranger at a public gym.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the victim impact, and the offender’s personal circumstances including a history of depression, substance abuse, and psychological stressors.

Psychiatric evidence indicated that while the offender had a major depressive disorder, it was likely in remission and did not significantly mitigate moral blameworthiness.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a vicious public attack with a weapon, the court determined that a fit sentence would have been 4½ years’ imprisonment.

After granting limited enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 36 months.

The applicant, convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of property obtained by crime, sought bail pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

His conviction had previously been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The court applied the test under section 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

While the applicant established he was not a flight risk and the court accepted the leave application was not frivolous, bail was denied on the public interest ground.

The court held that the balance favored immediate enforceability of the sentence given the seriousness of the crime, the confirmation of the conviction on appeal, and the remote chance of the Supreme Court granting leave.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown conceded the trial judge failed to give credit for an 86-day period because he was unaware bail had been revoked.

The trial judge also erred by giving only one-for-one credit for another 30-day period based on a breach of recognizance charge that was later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Crown's argument that one-for-one credit should apply to the entire period to maintain the overall sentence.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced by 202 days.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that struck down the section 38 scheme of the Canada Evidence Act as unconstitutional.

The scheme grants the Federal Court jurisdiction to determine questions of disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence, or national security.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the scheme does not violate section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or section 7 of the Charter.

The Court found that the scheme preserves the full authority and independence of the judge presiding over the criminal trial to do justice between the parties, including entering a stay of proceedings if necessary to protect the accused's right to a fair trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for five counts of robbery, possession of prohibited ammunition, and possession of stolen property, as well as his seven-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's verdict was supported by ample circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, video evidence, and similar fact evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; despite the appellant being a youthful first-time offender, the court held that the seven-year sentence was fit given the gravity of the armed robberies, and the trial judge did not err in prioritizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The United States sought the appellant's extradition to stand trial on terrorism charges for his alleged role in attempting to purchase weapons for the LTTE.

The appellant appealed his committal order and applied for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing that the terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code violated his Charter rights to freedom of expression and fundamental justice (overbreadth).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, finding that the provisions were not unconstitutionally overbroad, the test for committal was met, and the Minister's surrender decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that set aside a destruction order for a pit bull under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

The appeal judge had interpreted section 4(8) of the Act as requiring the court to find that destruction was necessary for the protection of the public.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the ordinary and natural meaning of section 4(8) is clear and unambiguous: once a pit bull is found to have bitten or attacked, the court is mandated to order its destruction.

The original destruction order was reinstated.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board, seeking a transfer to another part of the facility to be treated by a different team of doctors due to an alleged treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to find a treatment impasse was reasonable as the current treatment team had an ongoing plan involving different medication strategies.

Media organizations challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory publication ban on bail hearing information under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, arguing it unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provision.

The Court found that while the mandatory ban limits freedom of expression, it is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The ban's objectives of safeguarding the right to a fair trial and ensuring expeditious bail hearings are pressing and substantial.

The mandatory nature of the ban is rationally connected to these objectives, minimally impairs freedom of expression given its temporary nature and limited scope, and its salutary effects outweigh its deleterious effects.

The appellants, who were each found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on consent, appealed their verdicts.

They argued that the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to mandate an inquiry into whether an accused's consent to an NCRMD finding is voluntary and informed, similar to the inquiry required for guilty pleas under section 606(1.1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter challenges, finding no violation of fundamental justice or equality rights.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' individual arguments regarding the reasonableness of their verdicts, fitness to stand trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of armed robbery and a weapons offence, receiving a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity, as his co-accused received a lesser sentence for the robberies despite wielding the weapons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the 10-year sentence fit and the disparity justified by the appellant's lengthy criminal record, probation status, and poorer prospects for rehabilitation compared to his co-accused.