E. Jackson

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder, applied for bail.

The Crown alleged the applicant acted as the getaway driver for the suspected shooter.

The applicant proposed a release plan involving house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by his father and sister.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed sureties inadequate given the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions.

The court ordered detention on both the secondary ground (substantial likelihood of reoffending) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the respondent on a charge of first degree murder.

The respondent was present during an armed robbery and shooting at a restaurant but did not directly participate in the robbery or the killing, though he did briefly assault one of the victims.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence to commit the respondent for murder under either party liability or constructive murder provisions.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession without a license after fleeing a crowded club where shots were fired.

The court considered the serious risk to the public, the offender's prior criminal record, and the breach of a prohibition order as aggravating factors, balanced against his youth and rehabilitative prospects.

A total sentence of 54 months was imposed, with credit for 27.5 months of pre-trial custody.

Sentencing for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and the concept of the mandatory minimum as an "inflationary floor" in firearm sentencing jurisprudence.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s relatively modest record and the severe immigration consequence of automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Aggravating factors included the dangerous combination of a loaded handgun and drug trafficking activity.

The court imposed the three‑year mandatory minimum for the firearm offence with a consecutive one‑year sentence for drug trafficking, resulting in a four‑year global sentence, with enhanced pre‑trial custody credit at 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at an apartment and discovered a handgun, drugs, and cash.

The accused admitted possession of a quantity of cocaine and proceeds of crime but denied possessing the handgun and a second quantity of drugs, alleging police fabricated evidence.

Applying the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.), the court accepted the evidence of Emergency Task Force officers that the handgun was found in the accused’s waistband during the arrest and rejected allegations of fabrication.

The court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the accused’s testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the additional quantity of drugs allegedly discovered in the apartment due to irregularities in the handling and documentation of exhibits, and convicted only on the quantity the accused admitted possessing.