Gary Martin Chayko

The appellants, two First Nation individuals with no prior criminal records, appealed their sentences for obstructing police.

They were found guilty after a multi-day trial for interfering with a search warrant at an unlicensed cannabis store on a reserve.

The sentencing judge imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years' probation, exceeding the Crown's recommendation of a suspended sentence with 12 months' probation and a fine/community service.

Co-accused with criminal records who pleaded guilty received suspended sentences.

The appeal court found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to provide cogent reasons for exceeding the Crown's position, misapplying the principles of parity, restraint, and the sentencing of Indigenous and first offenders, and over-emphasizing denunciation and deterrence without considering the potential of a suspended sentence to achieve these goals.

The appeal was granted, and a suspended sentence with a one-year period of probation was imposed.

The accused was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against young female adult voice students.

The assaults occurred under the guise of 'healing sessions' and involved significant intimate physical contact, including digital penetration and oral sex, exploiting a position of trust as a teacher and quasi-therapist.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence proposed 2 years plus probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the devastating impact on victims, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (73 at sentencing) and lack of criminal record, though his age was given limited weight due to his vigor and the severity of the assaults.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, along with DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence arising from police stops and searches following a 911 report of a domestic dispute and suspected drug trafficking.

Police stopped a vehicle containing approximately 32.5 pounds of marijuana and later stopped a second vehicle carrying cash.

The defence alleged breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, loss of a 911 recording, degradation of evidence, and improper commingling of seized drugs.

The court held that the initial stop constituted a lawful investigative detention based on a detailed 911 call from an identified caller and that the officer’s observations and smell of marijuana provided reasonable grounds to arrest and search.

The loss of the 911 recording and evidence-handling issues did not prejudice the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The Charter applications were dismissed and the seized evidence ruled admissible.

The applicant sought the release of seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to fund legal expenses in pending criminal proceedings.

Police had seized more than $1 million in cash during a search that also uncovered drugs and other evidence.

The court accepted that the seized funds were available for potential release and that the applicant had established sole entitlement to the money despite arguments about possible competing claims.

However, the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need, as required under s. 462.34, given inconsistencies between his claimed lack of assets and evidence that he possessed substantial unexplained cash and lived in a mortgage-free home.

The application for release of funds for legal fees was therefore denied.