Brendon George Basiga

The accused was charged with resist arrest, dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

The incident began when the accused's vehicle struck a parked van in a parking lot, propelling it into a third vehicle.

After being told by bystanders not to leave, the accused reversed his vehicle rapidly and fled the scene, driving erratically down Dundas Street at excessive speeds and weaving through traffic.

He was eventually stopped by an off-duty police officer and arrested.

During arrest, he physically resisted police officers.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, rejecting his testimony and accepting the evidence of multiple witnesses and police officers regarding his bizarre behaviour, erratic driving, and impairment by drugs.

The offender was convicted by a jury of robbery, uttering death threats, extortion, and using an imitation firearm.

The offences involved a prolonged period of terrorizing a vulnerable victim over an alleged debt owed by her sister.

The court weighed the offender's extensive criminal record and the profound impact on the victim against his recent rehabilitative efforts in custody.

A global sentence of 4 years and 8 months was imposed, including a consecutive 2-year sentence for the imitation firearm offence, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, a non-communication order, and $900 in restitution.

During a criminal jury trial for extortion, robbery, and death threats, the Crown sought to re‑examine the complainant about her understanding of one accused’s reputation to explain her delayed report to police.

Defence objected, arguing the evidence constituted inadmissible character evidence with prejudicial impact.

The court held that the proposed testimony was admissible not to prove the truth of the accused’s alleged reputation, but to establish the complainant’s state of mind and rebut defence suggestions that the allegations were fabricated due to delayed reporting.

Applying the balancing approach to discreditable conduct evidence, the court found the probative value in addressing credibility outweighed the potential prejudice.

The Crown was therefore permitted to ask the proposed questions with a limiting jury instruction.

The accused, a 25-year-old member of the Nipissing First Nation with an extensive violent criminal history, was sentenced following his guilty plea to breaching a high-risk offender recognizance under section 810.2 of the Criminal Code and uttering a threat to burn property contrary to section 264.1.

The breach involved failing to notify police of a change of address.

The threat was made at his mother's apartment complex when he was denied entry to retrieve belongings.

The court imposed a sentence of 45 days jail to be served intermittently on weekends, along with a three-year probation order with conditions including anger management and substance abuse counselling, cultural and First Nations-based programming, and no contact with the complainants.

The accused pleaded guilty to two breaches of a section 810.2 recognizance and possession of marijuana.

The recognizance required the accused not to consume or possess drugs or alcohol and to carry a copy of the order.

The accused was arrested with 2.4 grams of marijuana and could not produce the recognizance.

The court imposed a sentence of four months jail, less 78 days pre-plea custody, leaving 42 days to serve, followed by a two-year probation order with conditions including abstinence from alcohol and drugs, reporting to probation, and participation in culturally appropriate counselling and assessment.