Gregory James Elder

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code after a police pursuit involving multiple red-light violations, roadway departures, and collisions with police vehicles.

The sentencing issue was whether denunciation and deterrence required a conditional sentence, or whether a conditional discharge remained fit in light of individualized circumstances.

The court weighed significant aggravating features of the driving against mitigating factors including early guilty plea, remorse, absence of record, rehabilitation efforts, and social-context evidence including anti-Black racism impacts.

The court also considered collateral consequences relating to employability and immigration inadmissibility risk, applying parity and proportionality principles.

A conditional discharge with probation and a driving prohibition was imposed.

Two accused were jointly charged on a fourteen-count indictment involving sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, making and possessing child pornography.

The offences were alleged to have occurred over more than two decades involving multiple complainants who were children of a family member of one accused.

The court considered a similar fact application by the Crown, ultimately dismissing the application with respect to two complainants whose evidence was found to be tainted by collusion and whose allegations of involvement by one accused were only disclosed after police informed one complainant of an unrelated assault on her child.

One accused pleaded guilty mid-trial to multiple counts involving child pornography and sexual assaults on two complainants.

On the remaining counts, the court found the first accused guilty of sexual assault on one complainant and guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography, while acquitting both accused of the remaining contested charges.

The court found insufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt sexual assaults by the first accused on the other complainants, whose evidence was intertwined with collusion-tainted allegations.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a child victim aged 11 or 12 years old.

The offence involved two separate incidents of sexual touching, including direct contact with the victim's genitalia.

After a lengthy procedural history spanning over two years, including an unsuccessful application to strike the guilty plea and a fitness assessment confirming the accused's fitness to stand trial, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day with six months credit for time served, resulting in 18 months remaining custody.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the guilty plea, family support, and the accused's age and cognitive deficits, finding that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence.

The court also imposed a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and section 161 prohibition orders, along with 12 months probation.

Kayil Torres pled guilty to possessing and accessing child exploitation material on multiple occasions in 2022.

The court considered extensive forensic evidence, expert psychological assessments diagnosing Torres with pedophilia, and his personal circumstances including youth, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Crown sought a 2-year penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence based on mitigating factors.

The court found the aggravating factors, including the volume and nature of the material and the offender’s high blameworthiness, outweighed mitigating factors.

It imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence on both counts, a 2-year probation order, and ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a s. 161 order restricting contact with children.

Following a sexual assault conviction, the Crown sought to sentence the accused in absentia after he absconded.

The court, having previously erred in not revoking bail, determined that the accused had voluntarily absented himself to avoid consequences.

While acknowledging the need for sufficient information for a fit sentence, the court found enough information available from trial evidence and a previous presentence report.

The court granted a brief adjournment to allow defence counsel to follow up on information and make a final contact attempt, but confirmed the sentencing would proceed on the adjourned date regardless of the accused's presence.

An arrest warrant was issued.

This decision addresses the admissibility of blood and medical records seized from the accused, who was charged with impaired driving and driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration (BAC) following a single-vehicle accident.

The accused challenged the search warrant and production order, arguing a lack of reasonable and probable grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and that the ITO was misleading.

The court found that the ITO was misleading regarding the presence of a whisky bottle (implying it was open when its state was unknown) and that a witness's bald suspicion of impairment lacked sufficient factual basis.

Excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the remaining facts did not establish reasonable and probable grounds, rendering the seizure warrantless and a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the section 24(2) Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, primarily due to the serious impact on the accused's Charter rights, despite the officer's conduct not being particularly egregious.

The evidence was therefore excluded.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

This sentencing decision concerns Michael Chapman, who pleaded guilty to approximately 20 counts under the Criminal Code and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences included mail theft, dangerous driving, fleeing police, operating a stolen vehicle, identity theft, fraudulent credit card use, property damage, and uttering threats, alongside trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record, significant victim impact, and the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs.

Mitigating factors were the guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, successful engagement in addiction treatment, completion of high school, strong family support, and a job offer.

The Crown sought a total sentence of approximately four years of incarceration, while the defence argued for a suspended sentence or a community-based sentence.

The court imposed a total net sentence of 20 months, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation, a DNA order, a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, and a two-year driving prohibition.

The judge found a conditional sentence appropriate, balancing the seriousness of the offences with the offender's rehabilitation and the principle of restraint, concluding that community safety would not be endangered.

The defendant, N.M., was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of his step-daughter, A.D. The Crown's case relied on A.D.'s testimony and an audio recording.

The defendant denied the allegations, and his testimony was found credible by the court.

The court identified inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's evidence, including potential motives related to her biological father.

Applying the R. v. W.D. framework, the court found that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The accused, I.F.L., was charged with sexual assault on his wife.

The complainant testified that the accused, while intoxicated, sexually assaulted her in their guest room, an incident corroborated by her mother.

The defence argued fabrication due to ongoing family law disputes and highlighted inconsistencies and a 13-month delay in reporting.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. framework for credibility, finding the accused's testimony not credible or truthful, and accepting the complainant's and her mother's evidence as credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies and the delayed report.

The court found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The defence objected to a Crown question during cross-examination concerning text messages between the complainant and the accused, arguing non-disclosure, prior Crown indication not to adduce the texts, and case splitting.

The Crown contended the texts were known to the defence and became relevant to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication after the accused's testimony.

The court ruled that the Crown had not split its case, as the evidence was not admissible in chief but became relevant to address the specific nature of the defence, which was an outright denial.

The defence's objection was dismissed, allowing the Crown to question the accused about the text messages.

The young person, C.Z., pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing two deaths and one bodily harm.

The court considered the principles of youth sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, including the young person's diminished moral blameworthiness, high degree of responsibility, and numerous mitigating factors such as excellent prospects and genuine remorse.

The court determined that a non-custodial sentence would not meet the purposes and principles of youth sentencing, particularly the need for denunciation and meaningful consequences proportionate to the grave harm caused.

A custodial sentence was deemed necessary.

Mr. Yi Shuai Yang applied for a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay of almost 27 months for an "80 plus" charge.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating a net delay of 793 days (26 months).

It found the COVID-19 public health crisis to be a discrete exceptional circumstance, deducting 295 days of delay attributable to it.

This reduced the remaining delay to 498 days (16.5 months), which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

Although the applicant took meaningful steps to expedite, the court found the case did not take "markedly longer" than it reasonably should have given the circumstances.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied, and the trial dates were confirmed.

The accused, Hamidkhan Pathan, was charged with impaired operation and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

He conceded impairment and BAC but denied operating the vehicle.

The court assessed the credibility of the Crown's witnesses (a 911 caller and a police officer) and found them credible and reliable.

The accused's testimony was rejected due to intoxication, inconsistencies with external evidence, and illogical claims.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated the vehicle as alleged, leading to a conviction.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired operation, and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a high-speed chase through residential areas.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the admissibility of breath test evidence on grounds of violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 8 (right to privacy) regarding cell toilet surveillance and excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2).

However, the court convicted the accused on the dangerous operation and impaired operation charges based on the totality of the evidence, including observations of the accused's driving and physical condition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit following a traffic stop.

The defence raised multiple Charter breaches including: failure to make an ASD demand "forthwith," failure to administer the ASD test before the accused could obtain legal advice, lack of reasonable grounds for the approved instrument demand due to failure to note the ASD calibration date, privacy breach through cell video surveillance, overholding after testing, and inadequate right to counsel advice.

The court rejected all alleged breaches and found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Charles Chun appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg, arguing a breach of his s. 10(a) Charter rights and an error by the trial judge in declining to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice, applying a standard of deference to the trial judge's factual findings and s. 24(2) analysis, found that the trial judge's characterization of the events leading to the breath demand was reasonable.

Despite a s. 10(a) Charter breach, the trial judge's application of the Grant analysis was upheld, concluding that the breach was not trivial, but police acted in good faith and the impact on the appellant's interests was minimal.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and dangerous driving following a single-vehicle collision in a rural area on September 17, 2017.

The Crown sought acquittal on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding how the vehicle entered the ditch.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant was operating the vehicle between 01:30 and 03:00 on September 17, 2017, while having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The dangerous driving charge was dismissed.