C. Otter

The offender, who was 18 years old at the time of the offences, was sentenced for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit forcible confinement, unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and trafficking in a controlled substance.

The court considered the offender's cognitive impairments, background of poverty, and harsh presentence custody conditions as mitigating factors against the serious aggravating factors of the offences, which included a home invasion and the use of a firearm.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, which was reduced to 8 years and 3 months after applying credit for presentence custody.

The applicants brought a pretrial motion challenging a search warrant and a Part VI wiretap authorization.

The court found that the applicant had standing to challenge the search warrant for a short-term rental unit, as he could rely on the affiant's theory in the Information to Obtain (ITO) which alleged he rented the unit.

The court also held that the applicants do not require leave to cross-examine officers regarding the 'resort-to' provision of the wiretap authorization, as the Crown bears the burden of establishing lawful interception when a Charter challenge is raised.

The offenders were convicted of firearms trafficking and related offences committed in association with a criminal organization that imported firearms from the United States to Toronto.

The Crown sought sentences of 9 and 12 years, while the defence sought 4 and 6-8 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the severe risk firearms pose to the community, while also considering the offenders' lack of prior records and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the first offender to 6 years and the second offender to 9 years in custody, with credit given for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The accused, Bill Allison and Kamar Cunningham, were charged with multiple offences related to firearms trafficking and participation in a criminal organization following a police investigation dubbed 'Project Patton'.

The Crown alleged that the accused were involved in importing firearms from the United States and distributing them in Toronto.

The court relied heavily on intercepted communications using coded language.

Mr. Allison testified, claiming he only received firearms for personal use, but his evidence was rejected.

Mr. Allison was found guilty of firearms trafficking, offering to transfer a firearm, and conspiracy.

Mr. Cunningham was found guilty of firearms trafficking, participating in a criminal organization, and possession for the purpose of transferring, but was acquitted of conspiracy due to reasonable doubt about his membership.

The applicants, alleged members of the 'Five Point Generals' criminal organization, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of Tracking Data Warrants, Transmission Data Recording Warrants, and Part VI wiretap authorizations.

Two applicants argued there were insufficient grounds to link them to specific phone numbers, while the others argued they should not have been named in the Information to Obtain (ITO) as the conditions under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code were not met.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to believe the phone numbers were linked to the applicants and that there was sufficient evidence of association with the criminal organization to justify naming the other applicants in the ITO.

The Crown applied for an order quashing a preliminary inquiry judge's discharge of the respondent on drug possession charges and seeking mandamus to commit him to trial.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by improperly weighing circumstantial evidence and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and control of drugs found in a condominium.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly applied the test for committal and that any error made was regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, which falls within her jurisdiction and is not subject to certiorari.

The applicant, facing serious drug trafficking charges, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being denied legal aid.

The Crown conceded the charges were serious and the case complex, but disputed the applicant's inability to privately fund his defence.

The court found that Legal Aid Ontario's income thresholds were unrealistic and that the applicant, who earned approximately $16,000 annually, had no realistic prospect of funding the estimated $11,000 trial costs.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed pending the provision of state-funded counsel.

Following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the offender was sentenced for arranging to purchase a large quantity of cocaine through an RCMP reverse sting operation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the scale of the intended transaction, the offender’s criminal record, and evidence that he was armed and prepared to use violence to protect the drugs.

The court rejected arguments that delay between the offence and sentencing should substantially mitigate the sentence and declined to apply the totality principle based on earlier convictions arising from the same investigation.

Credit of 1.5:1 was applied for 511 days of pre-sentence custody.

A lengthy penitentiary term was imposed along with firearms prohibition, DNA order, and delayed parole eligibility.