3 total
A youthful offender received a 10-year sentence for smuggling carfentanil into a detention centre.
Shawn Atkinson pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking carfentanil into a detention centre.
The court considered the extreme danger of carfentanil and the aggravating nature of smuggling drugs into a custodial setting, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.
However, the court also balanced these principles with the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation, as per the principles for youthful offenders.
Given the lack of specific precedent for carfentanil trafficking, the court imposed a sentence at the high end of the Crown's requested range.
The court imposed custodial sentences rather than conditional sentences for a sophisticated debit card skimming scheme.
The accused pleaded guilty to five omnibus fraud counts arising from a sophisticated debit card skimming scheme perpetrated against multiple financial institutions in Hamilton and Niagara.
The scheme involved installing card reader overlays and pinhole cameras on ATMs to capture debit card data and PINs, which were then used to create counterfeit cards for fraudulent purchases and cash withdrawals.
Total losses exceeded $86,000.
The court rejected conditional sentences despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas and first-offender status for one accused, imposing custodial sentences due to the sophisticated nature of the scheme, its extent, premeditation, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
Breath test results were excluded and the impaired driving charge dismissed because the police lacked reasonable grounds for the breath demands.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown obtained breath samples showing readings of 137 and 131 milligrams respectively.
The defence challenged the validity of the breath demands and the qualification of the breath technician.
The court found that the initial approved screening device demand lacked any stated legal basis and that the subsequent approved instrument demand was also improper, as the officer failed to establish the requisite reasonable grounds to believe.
The court excluded the breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that the long-term interests of the administration of justice favoured exclusion despite the reliability of the evidence and the seriousness of the offence.
The charge was dismissed.
