3 total
Home invasion with confinement resulted in 25‑month custodial sentence.
Sentencing decision following convictions for break and enter with intent to commit robbery and unlawful confinement arising from a home invasion.
The offender and a co‑accused gained entry to a dwelling by ruse and confined the occupants while searching for prescription drugs.
The court considered aggravating factors including a significant criminal record, violence during the confinement, and commission of the offences while on probation.
Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, difficult personal background, mental health issues, substance abuse history, and Gladue considerations as an Aboriginal offender.
Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and restorative justice principles, the court imposed a custodial reformatory sentence.
Convictions for criminal harassment set aside because unsworn video statement lacked sufficient guarantees of reliability.
The appellant appealed convictions for criminal harassment and harassing telephone calls, which relied entirely on the admission of an unsworn video statement.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in assessing the statement's reliability by failing to consider evidence that the declarant felt pressured, compounded by the absence of an oath.
Concluding there were insufficient guarantees of reliability to admit the hearsay evidence, the Court set aside the convictions and entered acquittals on those counts, while leaving a breach of probation conviction intact.
Crown wardship upheld despite fresh evidence of father's separation from mother, prioritizing child's foster family bond.
The appellant father appealed a Crown wardship order regarding his biological child.
He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal that he had separated from the child's mother, who had been found incapable of parenting.
The appeal judge refused to admit the fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence met the test for admission as it was highly relevant and potentially decisive.
However, applying the fresh evidence, the Court concluded that the child's best interests still required Crown wardship, given the child's strong bond with his foster family over the past 17 months.
The appeal was dismissed, but the costs order against the father was set aside.