E. Lam

The offender, who was 18 years old at the time of the offences, was sentenced for attempted murder, conspiracy to commit forcible confinement, unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and trafficking in a controlled substance.

The court considered the offender's cognitive impairments, background of poverty, and harsh presentence custody conditions as mitigating factors against the serious aggravating factors of the offences, which included a home invasion and the use of a firearm.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, which was reduced to 8 years and 3 months after applying credit for presentence custody.

The applicants brought a pretrial motion challenging a search warrant and a Part VI wiretap authorization.

The court found that the applicant had standing to challenge the search warrant for a short-term rental unit, as he could rely on the affiant's theory in the Information to Obtain (ITO) which alleged he rented the unit.

The court also held that the applicants do not require leave to cross-examine officers regarding the 'resort-to' provision of the wiretap authorization, as the Crown bears the burden of establishing lawful interception when a Charter challenge is raised.

The accused, facing firearms charges, brought pre-trial motions challenging the validity of a search warrant and a warrantless search of an Instagram account under s. 8 of the Charter.

They sought further disclosure and leave to cross-examine the affiant, arguing that a confidential informant was actually a police agent.

The court dismissed the disclosure and cross-examination motions, finding no evidence to support the police agent theory.

The court upheld the search warrant, concluding the information provided by informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the Instagram search, finding the accused lost his reasonable expectation of privacy by accepting a stranger's follow request.

The applicants, charged with fraud over $5,000 in relation to an alleged Ponzi scheme, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to provide full and transparent disclosure of their financial circumstances to prove indigency.

Furthermore, the court held that given the applicants' high level of education, business experience, and demonstrated competence during the preliminary inquiry, representation by counsel was not essential to ensure a fair trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to numerous firearms offences including possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition, conspiracy to transfer firearms, transferring firearms, and possession of firearms for the purpose of transferring them.

Over a five‑month period, the accused used his valid firearms licence to legally purchase 47 handguns and transferred 43 of them to another individual, receiving payment for each purchase.

Several of the firearms were later recovered at crime scenes while many remained unrecovered.

The court considered aggravating factors including the scale of the trafficking and the risk posed to public safety, balanced against significant mitigating factors such as the accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence required a penitentiary sentence but that the Crown’s requested sentence was excessive.

A sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was imposed, subject to credit for pre‑sentence custody.