E. Rolfe

The accused, a 21-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to robbery, possession of an unlicensed shotgun, and pointing a firearm following a home invasion.

The accused and two accomplices entered a residence armed with loaded firearms, a baton, and pepper spray, assaulting the occupants.

While on bail, the accused cut off his GPS ankle bracelet and absconded, leading to a conviction for breach of recognizance.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of 5 years in the penitentiary, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violent home invasions.

The court partially denied enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to the flagrant bail breach, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years and 20 days.

Two accused were jointly tried for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession, with one accused also charged with possession of proceeds of crime.

Crack cocaine was discovered during an inventory search of a vehicle following a traffic stop and planned tow for lack of insurance.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including proximity to the drugs, possession of cash and cell phones, and suspicious movements in the vehicle.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused had knowledge of the drugs in the vehicle.

Given the limited visibility of the bag, lack of direct evidence, and several reasonable alternative inferences, the circumstantial evidence did not establish knowing possession.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered drugs hidden in his car seat during a roadside stop.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing that the police lacked reasonable grounds for his detention and arrest, thereby violating his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court found that the police had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to detain and subsequently arrest the accused based on a confidential informant's tip and their own observations.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the arrest and searches were lawful, and held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.