Elysia Nocida

The offender was convicted of robbery with a firearm after robbing a convenience store using an airsoft pistol.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a four-year sentence was appropriate but disagreed on the treatment of pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court found that the offender's 518 days in close confinement constituted harsh conditions that must be considered as a mitigating factor.

The court reduced the appropriate sentence from four years to three years, applied Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, and imposed a remaining sentence of 115 days along with two years of probation.

The accused was charged with robbery using a firearm after a convenience store was robbed by a suspect wielding an airsoft handgun.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown relied on in-store video footage, police body-worn camera footage, and items found in the accused's possession upon his arrest shortly after the incident.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's matching clothing, distinctive duffle bag with a sleeping bag, the airsoft gun, and the exact denomination of stolen cash, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown applied under section 715(1) of the Criminal Code to admit the preliminary inquiry evidence of a robbery victim who had since returned to Pakistan and was unable to testify at trial.

The respondent opposed, arguing admission would impact trial fairness and that the Crown failed to make sufficient efforts to have the witness testify remotely.

The court granted the application, finding the statutory preconditions were met, the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, and there was no unfairness given the identity issue could be assessed via security footage and the Crown's inability to compel remote testimony from Pakistan.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 6 years' imprisonment and a 16-year driving prohibition following guilty pleas to dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

He argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit and the sentencing judge erred in weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, including a psychological report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the egregious conduct, excessive speed, and legislative increases to maximum penalties for dangerous driving.

Following trial convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from a road-rage confrontation, the court determined sentence.

The court held denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing principles but found a jail sentence was not required on these facts.

Weighing aggravating factors including leaving the scene and a false firearm report against significant mitigating factors, including first-offender status and strong rehabilitative history, the court concluded a conditional sentence remained proportionate.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles and authorities on parity and conditional sentence denunciatory effect, the court imposed a substantial community-based sanction with house arrest conditions.

The offender received an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 2 years’ probation, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

Wayne Afemui was charged with assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm under ss. 267(a) and 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony and video surveillance to prove that Afemui intentionally struck the complainant, Sheldon Arnold, with his vehicle in a circular driveway after a verbal altercation.

Afemui testified in his own defense claiming the contact was accidental and that he was trying to escape a perceived threat.

The court found Afemui's evidence not credible or reliable, accepted the Crown's evidence, and concluded that Afemui's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care and that he intentionally hit Arnold with his car.

Afemui was found guilty on both charges.

This was a ten-day judge-alone criminal trial where the defendant, D.F., faced 28 counts of physical and sexual assault against his former partner, C.L., alleged to have occurred between 2008 and 2020.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting that the complainant fabricated the allegations in the context of a family law dispute, particularly after learning he had a new partner.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be neither credible nor reliable, citing numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and the manipulation of text messages to falsely imply admissions from the defendant.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found credible and reliable.

The court dismissed all charges, concluding that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and explicitly stating belief in the defendant's account.