Brian Kolman

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation after stabbing a victim multiple times in a mall.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, psychiatric profile, and expert evidence regarding treatability and risk management.

The court declined to designate the offender as a dangerous offender, finding that the risk to the public could be managed in the community with strict conditions.

The offender was designated a long-term offender and sentenced to a 14-year determinate term (less 7 years pre-trial custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, charged with numerous firearms and drug trafficking offences following an undercover operation, sought a bail review and a s. 525 hearing.

He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and delay constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no material change, noting COVID-19 was considered at the original hearing and the delay was not unreasonable.

The court upheld the detention on the tertiary ground, concluding that releasing the applicant, given the formidable case and serious firearms charges, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge a young person on charges of robbery and pointing a firearm related to a carjacking.

The reviewing judge found that while the preliminary inquiry judge erred in concluding there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the accused to trial, this error was not jurisdictional in nature.

Because the preliminary inquiry judge considered the whole of the evidence and did not act arbitrarily, the erroneous weighing of inferences did not deprive him of jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting a victim five times at a house party.

The Crown sought 10-12 years and delayed parole, while the defence sought 6-8 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 10 years, finding the use of a firearm and the offender's drug dealing to be significant aggravating factors.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to partial lockdowns caused by staff shortages, reducing the sentence by six months beyond the standard 1.5:1 credit.

The court declined to order delayed parole eligibility.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion alleging that the police violated their s. 8 Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant at their residence.

The police had a valid warrant for a single-family dwelling targeting another individual, but upon entry, discovered two separate residential units (main floor and basement).

The applicants resided in the basement unit.

The police proceeded to search the entire house, including the basement, where they found firearms and ammunition.

The court held that the search of the basement unit was reasonable and did not violate s. 8, given the target's access to common areas, his absence during the search, and the discovery of a handgun magazine in plain view in the basement.

The motion was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily harm and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, crystal meth, and cocaine.

The offender and two others engaged in a prolonged, unprovoked assault on a vulnerable young woman.

The court accepted a joint submission, imposing a global sentence of two years plus one day for the assault and a consecutive four-month sentence for the drug offences.

With enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the sentence was deemed served, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice after removing her friend's pool cues from a bar following a fatal stabbing.

The Crown argued the cues could have been used for identification, while the defence argued the accused merely retrieved her friend's property without intent to impede the investigation.

The court found that the perpetrator was well-known to patrons and staff, making the cues unnecessary for identification.

The court concluded that a specific intent to obstruct justice could not be inferred from the circumstantial evidence, and the accused was found not guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking cocaine to an undercover police officer.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the officer entrapped him during their initial telephone conversation by providing an opportunity to commit an offence before forming a reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer's use of coded street vernacular elicited responses from the defendant that established reasonable suspicion before any offer to purchase drugs was made.

Furthermore, the court held that the targeted investigation of a tip was bona fide and did not involve unfair tactics.

Accused persons charged with murder brought applications to exclude historical text messages obtained by police through a production order directed to a telecommunications provider.

They argued that s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code did not authorize the production of private communications, or alternatively that the provision violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court held that stored historical text messages constitute “data” within the meaning of the provision and that obtaining them by production order does not amount to interception of private communications under Part VI.

The statutory prerequisites for a production order satisfied constitutional standards for reasonable search and seizure.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

The young person was found guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearms offences arising from a drug transaction where the complainant was accidentally shot in the neck.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court granted the application, finding that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the accused accountable.

The court imposed an adult sentence with a starting point of five years imprisonment, but granted enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1 for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.