Ekaterina Perchenok

The court sentenced Daniel Thompson, a youthful first offender, for trafficking in cocaine, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded restricted firearm.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, Mr. Thompson’s personal background, the positions of the parties, and the applicable sentencing principles and ranges.

After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors—including Mr. Thompson’s youth, lack of record, remorse, and the impact of anti-Black racism—the court imposed a global sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent on all counts, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and issued ancillary orders.

The applicant, Daniel Thompson, brought a motion under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at 124 Cadillac Crescent, Brampton, alleging a s. 8 Charter infringement due to insufficient reasonable grounds for the warrant.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO), considering alleged omissions and misrepresentations by the affiant.

The court found that despite a minor omission regarding the applicant's post-buy travels, the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence, including MTO records, vehicle registration, and surveillance, to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The court relied on the affiant's detailed experience in drug investigations and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as no Charter violation was found.

The accused, Wilton Williams, pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of fentanyl and cocaine, and numerous mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of criminal record, youthfulness, remorse, significant rehabilitative efforts (obtaining welding qualifications), strong family support, and the impact of anti-Black racism on his life choices.

The court emphasized that deterrence and denunciation are primary objectives in fentanyl trafficking cases, but rehabilitation remains important, especially when social context evidence is presented.

The court found that a conditional sentence would be consistent with sentencing principles, promoting rehabilitation without endangering community safety, and would be more effective than institutional custody in ensuring the offender remains on a positive path.

The accused, Angella Marie Lewis, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.955 kilograms of cocaine.

This decision outlines the reasons for her sentence.

The court considered the sentencing range for importing multi-kilograms of cocaine (6-8 years), aggravating factors including her lengthy criminal record (though with a significant gap), and mitigating factors such as her difficult family history, remorse, and restrictive bail conditions over four years.

The court also addressed ancillary orders for forfeiture, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA data bank order.

Following a jury conviction for importing cocaine, a Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantum of cocaine imported by the accused for sentencing purposes.

The Crown asserted the accused imported four containers of cocaine, while the defense argued the containers might have been mixed up with those from a simultaneous investigation of another individual.

The court found the testimony of the border services officers credible and reliable, concluding the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four containers, totaling 1.955 kilograms of cocaine, were seized from the accused's luggage.

Andrew Campbell was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, pointing a handgun, and assault causing bodily harm.

The court, in its sentencing decision, considered the severe nature of the offences, which involved violence, torture, and the use of a firearm, alongside the offender's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included a clean criminal record and compliance with bail conditions.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 7 years for kidnapping, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, after granting credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail terms.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also issued.

The applicant, Neil Davis, brought an application seeking a declaration that the trial judge had lost jurisdiction and an order of prohibition, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This application automatically suspended the ongoing criminal trial.

The Crown requested a summary dismissal or an order for the trial to continue.

The court reviewed the underlying trial record and found no merit to the applicant's claim of reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold for such claims.

Consequently, the court ordered the criminal trial to continue as scheduled, effectively denying the suspension sought by the applicant, and noted that the issues raised in the application might become moot if the trial concluded, leaving appeal as the appropriate avenue.

During a preliminary hearing, the court determined the voluntariness of two statements made by the defendant to police.

The first statement involved providing name and address during a search warrant execution.

The second statement was a videotaped interview at the police station following arrest and exercise of rights to counsel.

The defendant alleged she was distraught, lacked an operating mind, and was induced by promises that she could go home and rejoin her children if she provided information about drugs and a gun.

The court found both statements were made voluntarily and with an operating mind, rejecting the defendant's credibility and accepting the officer's evidence that no inducements were offered.

The accused, charged with manslaughter alongside two co-accused, sought to bring several pre-trial applications, including a recusal motion, a jurisdictional challenge against transferring the trial out of Brampton, a section 10(b) Charter application, and an application for removal of counsel.

Due to counsel's medical issues and scheduling conflicts, the court had to set a firm timetable for the filing of materials and the hearing of these applications to ensure the scheduled trial date could be maintained.

The court ordered strict deadlines for the filing of application records and factums, scheduling the recusal application first, followed by the substantive applications.

The case involves three accused charged with manslaughter.

Due to courtroom shortages in Brampton, the trial was scheduled to be held in Kitchener.

Counsel for one of the accused suffered medical issues, leading to an adjournment.

Counsel subsequently indicated an intention to bring motions to transfer the trial back to Brampton or be removed from the record, but later attempted to unilaterally delay bringing these motions.

The case management judge rejected this delay, emphasizing the need for efficiency under the Jordan framework, and ordered strict deadlines for the defence to perfect any such applications.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old complainant, claiming he believed she was 16.

The trial judge found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The sole ground of appeal was ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging trial counsel should have forensically examined a MicroSD card containing a purported message indicating the complainant was 16.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice from counsel's alleged incompetence.

The Court also struck the s. 161(1)(c) order on sentencing appeal as the relevant provisions came into effect after the offences were committed.

This decision addresses a voir dire concerning the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Anne Marie Asia Maerkl, to Canada Border Services Officers (CBSA).

The accused had abandoned a Charter application.

The court reviewed the testimony of three CBSA officers and applied legal principles regarding the admissibility of unrecorded and partially recorded statements.

While some statements were found voluntary and admissible, others were excluded due to issues with contemporaneous recording and clarity of attribution, particularly those made during the initial roving inspection.