Brendan Gould

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder and arson, applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant drove the perpetrators to meet the victim, witnessed the kidnapping, and later assisted in burning the victim's vehicle and hiding the perpetrators.

The court found the proposed release plan involving the applicant's brother and sister-in-law as sureties was weak.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to discharge his onus on the primary (flight risk), secondary (substantial likelihood of re-offending), and tertiary (confidence in the administration of justice) grounds under s. 515(10).

The accused, Reece Korchinski and Darienne Colley-Welch, were jointly tried on multiple criminal charges, including possession of a firearm, pointing a firearm, unlawful confinement, robbery, and assault, arising from an alleged gun-point robbery.

Mr. Korchinski also faced charges for breach of court orders.

The Crown presented evidence from two witnesses, Matthew Thomas and Danielle Patai, whose credibility and reliability were significantly challenged due to dishonesty, inconsistencies, and animus towards the accused.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found the witnesses untrustworthy and their evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of both accused on all counts.

The accused, Gerri Carvalho, faced charges of drug possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking, with the trial blended with a Charter application challenging the legality of the initial police stop (s.9) and subsequent search (s.8).

The court found the initial stop was lawful due to dangerous driving, dismissing the s.9 application.

However, the s.8 application was granted, as inconsistencies in police testimony regarding the presence of a scale and marijuana shake meant that the smell of marijuana alone was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors under s.24(2), the court admitted the seized evidence, citing the good faith of the officer, the low expectation of privacy in a rental vehicle, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Ultimately, Carvalho was found guilty of simple possession of ecstasy and cocaine found on his person, but not guilty of the charges related to drugs found in the vehicle, as the Crown failed to prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender pleaded guilty to break and enter a dwelling house and commit therein the indictable offence of assault with a weapon.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months with emphasis on denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a suspended sentence or intermittent custody of no more than 90 days.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, his status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitative efforts, and the relatively modest level of violence despite the serious nature of a home invasion.

The court balanced aggravating factors including planning, use of weapons, and violation of the victim's home against substantial mitigating factors including youth, no criminal record, guilty plea, and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation.