Crown

The offender, Shamar Sealy, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, theft under $5000, and two counts of assault simpliciter, involving minor victims.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of victims, recording of an assault, use of a prohibited weapon, and threats, alongside mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, lack of adult convictions, a gap in his record, and mental health/substance abuse issues that he has since addressed.

Applying sentencing principles, including the attenuated importance of deterrence and denunciation for mentally ill offenders, and considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conditions of imprisonment, the court determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

In a criminal proceeding, the court considered the appointment of amicus curiae for the accused, Z., who was charged with serious offences and intended to self-represent.

The court found that due to the case's complexity, the accused's apparent mental health challenges, and his perceived incompetence to self-represent, there was a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Citing R. v. Walker, the court ordered the appointment of Mr. R.B. as amicus curiae with specific duties to assist the court and ensure the fairness of the proceedings.

A preliminary inquiry ruling on committal for trial involving five defendants charged with multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession of firearms, shootings, and criminal organization offences.

The Crown sought committal on 52 counts based on intercepted communications, surveillance evidence, and physical evidence.

The court applied the scintilla test for committal, requiring evidence on each essential element such that a reasonable jury could return a guilty verdict.

The judge committed the defendants on most counts while discharging them on certain fentanyl-related charges absent specific evidence of fentanyl trafficking.

The court found sufficient evidence of a criminal organization (SSW-G2M) engaged in drug trafficking and violence to enforce territorial control.

The applicant sought to vary or terminate a probation order imposed following his conviction for uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to a Child and Family Services worker.

The probation order contained numerous terms directed towards public safety and rehabilitation through counselling.

The applicant's application provided no reasonable basis for variation or termination, particularly given alleged non-compliance with the order from November 20, 2017 to March 29, 2018.

The Crown did not consent to the application.

The court dismissed the application, noting that personal inconvenience or unwillingness to remain on probation cannot justify modification of the order.