3 total
Accused sentenced to a suspended sentence and 24 months' probation for criminal harassment via text messages.
The accused was convicted by a jury of criminal harassment after sending 131 unwanted and increasingly threatening text messages to a former intimate partner over a two-week period.
The Crown sought a sentence of time served, which would have equated to penitentiary time given the accused's 22 months in pre-trial custody on an unrelated charge.
The court weighed the aggravating factors of the complainant's age and the accused's attempt to control her against mitigating factors including his youth, learning disabilities, and family support.
The court imposed a suspended sentence followed by 24 months of probation.
Application for sentence reduction dismissed as correctional officers' use of force and strip search were justified.
The applicant, an inmate convicted of attempted murder, sought a reduction of his 16-year sentence under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive use of force and unlawful strip search by correctional officers during pre-sentence custody.
The incident occurred during a Code Blue when the applicant was non-compliant with orders to return to his cell.
The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and concluded that the officers used reasonable and justified force to subdue him.
The court also held that the subsequent strip search and placement in a segregation cell followed facility protocols and did not violate sections 7, 8, or 9 of the Charter.
The application for a sentence reduction was dismissed.
Severance refused where later firearm evidence was relevant to earlier robbery counts.
The moving accused sought severance of two firearm counts laid only against a co-accused from the remaining home invasion robbery and unlawful confinement counts.
Applying the interests of justice analysis under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the framework in Last, the court held the later-discovered revolver was sufficiently similar to the weapon seen in the surveillance evidence to make the May firearm evidence relevant and admissible on the October counts.
The court found a factual nexus between the counts, concluded any moral prejudice could be addressed by the trial judge, and held that separate trials would be inefficient where the evidence would be admissible in both.
The severance application was dismissed.
