Corey Nishio

Dale Bowen pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors including the gravity of the offences, the combination of drugs and guns, and a lengthy criminal record with prior drug and weapons offences, as well as five breaches of firearms prohibition orders.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's moral blameworthiness and life choices.

The court imposed a global sentence of 56 months (4 years and 8 months), with 44 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months imprisonment, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a trial management conference in a criminal proceeding.

Key points included a discussion regarding the appointment of counsel for one accused, Stephen Richard Parr, who has a Legal Aid certificate but is seeking counsel on the LAO panel.

The court also directed the Crown to file its discreditable conduct application and ordered all counsel to file summaries of their intended pre-trial applications by March 29, 2024.

The judge expressed concern about the efficiency of virtual attendances and indicated a consideration for ordering future trial management conferences to be held in person.

The accused, Faysal Adow, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs) seized following his arrest for impaired care and control and subsequent arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the initial arrest for impaired care and control was unlawful due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

Consequently, the subsequent search of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of drugs, was an unreasonable search in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court also found violations of section 10(b) of the Charter for delayed provision of rights to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of the evidence and a finding of not guilty on all counts.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained by police, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The alleged violations included a delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel upon arrest and an unlawful vehicle search at the detachment, as well as unreasonable pat-down searches.

The court found a breach of section 8 regarding a third pat-down search and a breach of section 10(b) due to delayed counsel advice and access for some charges.

However, the court determined that the vehicle search at the detachment was a lawful continuation of a search incident to arrest.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter breaches were not serious, had minimal impact on the accused's protected interests, and therefore, admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Orville Palmer, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and a facial invalidity in the warrant's address.

The court conducted a "step six" assessment of the unredacted ITO, applying the Debot criteria, and found that the confidential informant's tip was compelling and sufficiently corroborated, establishing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

However, the court conceded that the warrant was facially invalid due to a typographical error in the address (Street instead of Avenue), constituting a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework for s. 24(2) Charter exclusion, the court balanced the seriousness of the breach (inadvertent error, good faith police conduct), the high impact on the applicant's privacy interests in his home, and society's interest in the adjudication of serious drug trafficking charges with highly reliable evidence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application to exclude.

Richard Briscoe was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and pleaded guilty to failing to comply with bail conditions.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, with credit for 120 days of pre-trial custody.

The reasons for sentence extensively discuss the intersection of criminal law and drug treatment, emphasizing rehabilitation as a paramount sentencing objective for drug-addicted offenders, while also balancing denunciation and deterrence.

The court explored therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving approaches in sentencing, noting the accused's long history of addiction and criminal behaviour.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun wrapped in a t-shirt in his family's garage.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance showing the accused and an associate in the garage, and photographs of the associate with a handgun.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the handgun and that multiple people had access to the unlocked garage.

The court found the accused's evidence unpersuasive but concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by invalid search warrants and an unauthorized cell phone search.

The court found the search warrant for one applicant's residence was valid, but the warrant for the other applicant's residence was invalid due to insufficient corroboration of a confidential informant's tip.

However, the court admitted the handgun found at the second residence under s. 24(2).

Regarding the first applicant's cell phone, the court found the police searched it without informed consent, violating his s. 8 rights, and excluded the cell phone contents under s. 24(2).

Howard Smith was convicted of robbery after a jury trial, following an incident where he and a co-accused robbed a victim in a motel room.

While the co-accused perpetrated the choking and forcible confinement, Smith was convicted solely of robbery.

The Crown sought a 12-15 month custodial sentence, emphasizing the aggravating factor of the offense occurring in a "dwelling-house" (motel room) and the victim's traumatic impact.

The defense requested a suspended sentence, highlighting Smith's lack of prior criminal record, rehabilitative prospects, and the opportunistic nature of the crime.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, imposing a sentence of 120 days in custody followed by 2 years' probation, along with a DNA order and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

A youth was charged with robbery and firearms offences arising from an attempted armed robbery of a drug dealer.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence, alleging that the accused posed as his cousin to set up the drug transaction and then participated in the robbery.

The accused testified that he was at his cousin's house playing video games, fled when he heard police were coming due to breaching his bail conditions, and hid under a deck where he was arrested.

The court found that while the accused's credibility was questionable, the identification evidence was significantly tainted by the accused's prior viewing of arrest photos in his own disclosure package.

The court also found that the accused had an independent reason to flee and hide from police unrelated to the robbery, and that it was plausible the accused's cousin, not the accused, was the person who participated in the robbery.

During a blended voir dire in a prosecution for possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to admit a videotaped police interview with the accused.

The court assessed whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The evidence showed the interviewing officer repeatedly suggested that providing information was required for the accused’s bail report and failed to provide a police caution informing the accused that statements could be used against him at trial.

Considering the inducement relating to bail and the absence of a caution, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

The accused were charged following an incident at a Shoppers Drug Mart in Toronto.

The accused were falsely accused of attempting to steal condoms by a loss prevention officer.

After being told to leave the premises, they attempted to do so but were physically detained by the loss prevention officer and store employees.

A struggle ensued outside the store.

The court found that the accused were not given a reasonable opportunity to leave as required by the Trespass to Property Act, making the arrest unlawful.

Consequently, the accused had the right to resist the unlawful detention using reasonable force.

The court found the force used was reasonable and not excessive.

All charges were dismissed.