Elliot Willschick

The court sentenced Travendous Beals after guilty pleas to possession of fentanyl, unlawful possession of a firearm while prohibited, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, Beals’ personal background, and the application of sentencing principles, including the impact of systemic anti-Black racism (Morris factors) and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan factors).

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced by pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders.

Kristopher Matthews pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 23-28 years and a s. 743.6 order for delayed parole eligibility.

Defence sought 10-13 years global and opposed the s. 743.6 order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years (13 years for kidnapping, 2 years consecutive for administering the drug), giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied the s. 743.6 order, finding that the danger presented by the offender did not warrant such an exceptional measure.

The defendants brought applications for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay of up to 44 months from arrest to the anticipated completion of their five-week trial.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the delay, while exceeding the presumptive 30-month Jordan ceiling, was justified by exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances included the particular complexity of the multi-accused kidnapping case, which involved extensive investigation, disclosure, and coordination of multiple counsel, and the systemic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted court operations and created significant backlogs.

The court concluded that the Crown and the justice system took all reasonable steps to mitigate delay, and the time taken would not violate the applicants' constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The Crown appealed the seven-year sentence imposed on the respondent for attempted murder of his pregnant intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to adequately apply the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in a domestic context, by misunderstanding the aggravating impact of planning and deliberation, and by misidentifying the appropriate sentencing range.

The Court emphasized that rehabilitation should not outweigh denunciation and deterrence in such serious cases and that sentencing ranges evolve with societal understanding of domestic violence.

The Court also found an error in the application of "Duncan" credits, which were treated as a direct reduction rather than a mitigating factor.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 15 years imprisonment was substituted, less credit for time served.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Corey Cunningham, who was convicted of attempted murder and theft under $5000.00.

The attempted murder involved a planned attack on his former intimate partner, Christina Elgin, who was pregnant, by stabbing her in the neck.

The Crown sought a life sentence, emphasizing the cold-blooded nature and domestic context.

The defence proposed a sentence of 6 to 11 years, highlighting the offender's lack of prior record, strong family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, finding that while the crime was horrific and required denunciation and deterrence, it was out of character for the offender, and his rehabilitative prospects placed the case at the lower end of the sentencing range for attempted murder.

Credit was given for pre-sentence custody, including an additional 12 months for harsh conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused, Corey Cunningham, was charged with attempted murder and armed robbery.

The Crown alleged he stabbed Christina Elgin and robbed her.

The court found Mr. Cunningham's testimony not credible due to contradictions with surveillance, medical, and text message evidence.

The court found Mr. Cunningham guilty of attempted murder, rejecting his self-defence claim.

He was found not guilty of robbery but guilty of the lesser included offence of theft of the phone, with reasonable doubt regarding the cash.

The Crown brought an application to remove counsel for the accused charged with two counts of second degree murder due to a conflict of interest.

The accused's counsel had previously represented a key Crown and defence witness in an unrelated impaired driving matter.

The court found that while a solicitor-client relationship existed, partial disqualification was a sufficient remedy to address the conflict of interest concerns while preserving the accused's right to counsel of choice.

The court ordered that counsel be prohibited from participating in the cross-examination of the witness and from being present when that witness testified.