Glenn Carter Brotherston

The 18-year-old accused was charged with internet luring, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving a 13-year-old complainant he met on Facebook.

The court acquitted the accused of the luring charges, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether his specific intent during the online communications was to facilitate a sexual offence, given the context of two teenagers talking and the complainant initiating the sexualized conversation.

However, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault and sexual interference, rejecting his testimony and accepting the complainant's evidence that they had sexual intercourse when she visited his home.

The accused, charged with kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and attempted murder, applied for a review of a detention order.

The reviewing judge applied the deferential standard of review from St-Cloud, finding no error in the Justice of the Peace's admission of a co-accused's statement or the evaluation of the proposed sureties.

The court upheld the detention on both the secondary ground, citing concerns about the accused's stability following a random and inexplicable attack, and the tertiary ground, given the violent nature of the crime, overwhelming evidence, and vulnerability of the victim.

The bail review was dismissed.

Two young persons were tried for kidnapping for ransom using a firearm.

One of the accused was also charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The victim, who was uncooperative at trial, had provided a detailed video-taped statement to police shortly after his release.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and admitted portions of the victim's statement for its truth, finding substantial corroborative evidence of the kidnapping, the use of firearms, and the first accused's identity as a perpetrator.

The first accused was found guilty of kidnapping, firearms offences, drug trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The second accused was acquitted, as the fingerprint evidence and the victim's description were insufficient to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought to exclude a firearm found during a search, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant was deficient, breaching his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown conceded the redacted ITO was insufficient and proceeded with a "Step Six" Garofoli procedure.

The court reviewed the ITO, including redacted material via a judicial summary, and found a sufficient link between the applicant and the searched premises.

Applying the Debot criteria, the court found the confidential informant's tip compelling, credible, and sufficiently corroborated.

The court concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant, no s. 8 Charter breach, and dismissed the application for exclusion of evidence.

Ganno Abdella was found guilty after trial of trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing objectives, principles, and appellate authority emphasizing penitentiary terms for heroin trafficking.

Despite mitigating factors like her difficult background, lack of criminal record, and low intellectual functioning, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from a penitentiary sentence.

The court also determined her involvement was ongoing, not a "one-off." She was sentenced to 26 months in penitentiary, less three days pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

In a trial for possession of a loaded firearm, the court ruled on several pre-trial motions and a motion for a directed verdict.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior possession of the same firearm, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also allowed the Crown to ask an eye-witness for an in-dock identification and admitted crime scene photographs verified by other officers.

A directed verdict of acquittal was granted for an obstructing justice charge because providing a false name did not actually obstruct the arresting officer.

However, the motion for a directed verdict on the firearm possession charges was dismissed, as the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The accused applied for severance from a multi-accused drug trafficking indictment and sought a judge-alone trial rather than a jury trial proceeding jointly with co-accused.

He argued prejudice arising from the loss of his chosen mode of trial, trial delay, financial hardship due to the anticipated length of a joint trial, and potential “guilt by association.” The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 591(3)(b) of the Criminal Code and leading authorities addressing the presumption in favour of joint trials where accused are alleged to have acted in concert.

The court found an evidentiary nexus between the accused and co-accused through the alleged drug trafficking network and concluded that the asserted prejudice could be managed through jury instructions and procedural accommodations.

The applicant failed to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice.

The offender was sentenced following convictions arising from a shopping mall incident in which he fired a loaded handgun while fleeing loss‑prevention officers after committing theft.

The offences included discharging a firearm to evade arrest, unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and magazine, possession while prohibited, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the risks created by firing a weapon in a crowded public place and the offender’s extensive criminal record.

Applying the totality principle and considering comparable sentencing ranges for serious gun offences, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody and harsh detention conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and eleven and one‑half months.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and several firearms and recognizance offences arising from a shooting at Fairview Mall during a pursuit following a shoplifting incident.

The central issue at trial was identification of the accused as the person captured on surveillance video wearing a red T‑shirt who fled and discharged a handgun during the chase.

The court assessed recognition evidence, eyewitness testimony, and extensive video and photographic evidence, admitting identification evidence from a probation officer who had frequent prior contact with the accused while excluding identification evidence from two police officers who lacked sufficient familiarity.

After comparing the video footage with the accused’s appearance in court and considering corroborating testimony from witnesses to the chase and shooting, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person in the video and that he fired a handgun at a pursuing security officer to avoid arrest.

However, the court found the Crown had not proven the specific intent required for attempted murder.