23 total
A preliminary inquiry justice has jurisdiction to grant leave to cross-examine an informant, but the threshold is applied restrictively.
The accused sought leave to cross-examine the informant who swore the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence.
The court dismissed the application.
While confirming that a preliminary inquiry justice has jurisdiction to grant leave to cross-examine an informant under the Garofoli test, the court held that the contextual factors at a preliminary inquiry—particularly the protection of confidential informers and concerns about prolixity—warrant a more restrictive approach than at trial.
The court found that the accused failed to meet the threshold for leave in all proposed areas of cross-examination.
The court imposed a sentence of time served for armed robbery, finding the offender's moral blameworthiness significantly diminished by severe trauma and mental illness.
The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous.
On June 7, 2011, he robbed a bank teller and an innocent cyclist outside a bank while armed with a knife.
The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of approximately three years, while the defence sought time served.
The court imposed a sentence of time served with enhanced credit for pre-trial detention (19.5 months), suspended the passing of sentence, and placed the accused on probation for three years with conditions including psychiatric counselling, medication compliance, and no contact with victims.
The accused was denied bail on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the recovery of loaded firearms and large quantities of drugs.
The Crown sought detention of the accused on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds following charges of 35 offences related to firearms and controlled substances.
The accused was found in possession of loaded firearms, significant quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy, along with 34 cell phones.
The court found no significant risk of absconding on the primary ground but determined the accused posed a substantial likelihood of committing further offences on the secondary ground and that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice on the tertiary ground.
The accused was ordered detained.
