Cheryl Robb

The accused brought pre-trial motions challenging the admissibility of a firearm seized pursuant to a telewarrant and utterances made to police during the search.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated to justify the warrant, resulting in no section 8 Charter breach.

Regarding the utterances, the court found statements made to one officer were voluntary and admissible, but statements made to another officer were obtained in violation of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights because the officer failed to advise him of the availability of duty counsel via a toll-free number.

The latter statements were excluded under section 24(2).

The two accused were stopped by police while driving in a vehicle owned by the driver.

Both were arrested for breaching their bail conditions.

During the arrest, an officer spotted the handle of a loaded handgun protruding from under a floor mat in the back seat.

The driver brought a s. 8 Charter application challenging the seizure, which was dismissed as the court found the gun was in plain view.

At trial, the driver was found guilty of all firearms and breach charges, as his knowledge and control of the weapon were inferred from his ownership and control of the vehicle.

The passenger was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge and control of the firearm.

Sentencing following convictions for a planned jewellery store robbery involving firearms where an employee was shot and seriously injured.

The offender was found guilty of multiple offences including robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, using a firearm to commit aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, masked robbery, and firearms possession offences while under prohibition orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the premeditated nature of the robbery, the offender’s extensive criminal record, and his disregard for firearms prohibition orders.

A global sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was determined appropriate prior to credit for pre-sentence custody.

After applying 1.5:1 credit for 29 months of pre-sentence custody, the effective remaining sentence was reduced to approximately 8 years and 4.5 months.