Brian Moreira

The accused was charged with 11 counts of careless storage of firearms and ammunition contrary to s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code following the execution of a search warrant.

The accused challenged the warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing that police should have interviewed him before seeking the warrant.

The court upheld the warrant, finding it was properly issued based on observations of ammunition magazines by a building manager and an opinion from a police firearms expert that they appeared to be prohibited devices.

On the merits, the court found the accused guilty on 9 of 11 counts, acquitting him only on two counts involving handguns with trigger locks, but convicting him for careless storage of other firearms and ammunition that were easily accessible throughout his apartment with no secure storage or reasonable precautions for public safety.

The applicants, Dennis Singh and Justin Sandassie, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder under section 745(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, the parties' positions, and the binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents.

The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the mandatory minimum sentence remains constitutionally valid and is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad under the Charter.

The applicant, an Indigenous person with a history of trauma and mental health challenges, sought a review of a detention order.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed an error of law by failing to apply Gladue principles.

Additionally, the applicant's recent acquisition of stable, supportive housing constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the secondary ground concerns could be addressed through the wraparound supports and housing now available, and ordered the applicant's release on their own recognizance with Bail Program supervision.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and extortion following encounters with a complainant he met on a dating app.

The accused provided a timely and particularized alibi for the extortion charge, supported by employment and Ministry of Transportation records, which the court found highly persuasive.

The court also found significant reliability and credibility issues with the complainant's evidence regarding the assault and sexual assault allegations, including inconsistencies about a photograph of her alleged injuries.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on all counts and found the accused not guilty.

This pre-trial ruling addressed the admissibility of a video-recorded police interview statement made by the accused, K.M., who was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his two oldest biological daughters.

The Crown sought to admit the exculpatory statement for potential cross-examination, arguing it was voluntary and Charter-compliant.

The accused contended it was involuntary, citing repeated assertions of his right to remain silent during the interview.

Following a voir dire, the court found the statement admissible, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntarily provided and not obtained in violation of the accused's right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Charter, applying the principles from R. v. Oickle and R. v. Singh.

Following a trial, the offender, R.R., was found guilty of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference involving his girlfriend's young daughter, aged eight to nine, over a ten-month period.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence, which are primary considerations for offences against victims under 18.

Aggravating factors included the offender's position of trust, the victim's young age, the multiple occasions of assault, and the offender's prior criminal record for assault and sexual assault against the victim's sisters.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, community involvement, family support, and compliance with judicial interim release.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for sexual interference, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 20-year mandatory weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child during the period of his relationship with the child’s mother.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence relating to the accused’s prior convictions for sexual assaults against the complainant’s sisters.

The court admitted certain similar fact evidence concerning assaults against one sister occurring in circumstances closely resembling the allegations in the indictment but excluded other allegations due to concerns about potential collusion or prejudice.

The accused also brought a lost evidence application alleging a prior videotaped statement from the complainant had been destroyed; the court found no such statement existed and dismissed the application.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony, accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following conviction after trial for break and enter into a dwelling house, robbery, and aggravated assault arising from a home invasion, the court imposed sentence.

The offender, a youthful first offender with no criminal record and strong prospects for rehabilitation, participated in a deliberate home invasion in which the victim sustained serious injuries and psychological harm.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for violent home invasions while also considering mitigating factors including youth, family support, lack of prior record, and nearly 42 months of strict house arrest on bail.

After assessing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and granting credit for stringent bail conditions and brief pre‑trial custody, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The accused, a 19-year-old offender, pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a firearm after shooting the victim in the face with a sawed-off shotgun in the early morning hours of December 8, 2013.

The victim sustained only superficial lacerations and made a full recovery.

The Crown sought 10 years' imprisonment while defence counsel submitted 3-4 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment (equivalent to 7 years and 9 months after pre-sentence custody credit), finding that the offence required significant denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's youth, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

A young person charged with 11 criminal offences related to possession of a loaded prohibited semi-automatic handgun and crack cocaine found in a bedroom shared with his 20-year-old brother.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that the items were found in the accused's bedroom.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of and control over the items.

The court found that while highly suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the items, particularly given that the bedroom was shared with his brother and others had frequent access.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference involving a minor where the offender had developed a relationship of trust with the child’s family.

The court conditionally stayed related convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation under the Kienapple principle because they arose from the same factual circumstances as the sexual interference counts.

The offender had abused a position of trust over a period of several months, resulting in significant psychological harm to the complainant and her family.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for sexual offences against children.

A global sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and orders for DNA sampling and sex offender registry compliance.