Ellie Minchopoulos

The accused, Hallie Ndorley, faced charges of robbery with an imitation firearm and possession of counterfeit money.

For the robbery charges, the court found the complainant's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, leading to a reasonable doubt.

For the counterfeit money charges, the evidence of possession was entirely circumstantial.

Applying the principles from R. v. Villaroman, the court determined that a reasonable innocent scenario could be inferred from the evidence or lack thereof, specifically that the counterfeiting operation might have been run by other residents without the accused's knowledge or control.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The offender, a youthful first offender, was found guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and possessing a firearm without a licence.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the lesser charge.

In sentencing, the court balanced the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence against the offender's significant rehabilitation, his role as the primary caregiver to a special needs child, and the collateral consequences of incarceration.

The court imposed a punitive conditional sentence of two years less 24 days, followed by three years of probation.

Cory Beale pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, failure to comply with a release order (no weapons), failure to comply with SOIRA, assault peace officer, and failure to comply with a release order (curfew).

The aggravated assault involved striking an elderly man with a machete.

The Crown sought 5.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the unprovoked nature of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, and the offender's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, recent rehabilitative efforts, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years' incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes and breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and the challenges of SOIRA compliance for vulnerable individuals.

The accused, Chemar Guillaume, was charged with three counts of assaulting a peace officer and three counts of wilfully resisting a peace officer following an incident where he refused to leave a courtroom after his case was remanded.

He also brought a Charter application alleging excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment by court officers.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officers' use of force reasonable and proportionate given the accused's unruly behaviour.

Regarding the assault charges, the court found that while the accused's actions were reckless and caused physical contact, the Crown failed to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the accused was found guilty of wilfully resisting peace officers, as his active physical resistance was intentional and aimed at thwarting the officers' lawful duties to escort him.

The applicant, Herbert Meawasige, brought a motion to stay charges of assault, assault with a weapon, and three counts of failing to comply with probation, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was expected to conclude 18 months and 22 days after his charge, exceeding the presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court found minimal defence delay and no evidence of the Crown's efforts to mitigate the delay, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the charges were stayed.