Henry Limheng

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of residential break-and-enter and one count of failing to comply with probation.

Despite an abysmal criminal record including manslaughter, the offender demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation over 871 days on bail, overcoming a severe drug addiction and establishing a pro-social life.

The court found that these exceptional circumstances warranted a departure from the usual penitentiary sentence to prioritize specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the breach, followed by three years of probation, and received suspended sentences for the break-and-enters.

Two child protection cases were heard on the same date following the proclamation of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 into force on April 30, 2018.

The first case involved an 11-year-old autistic child brought into care due to the mother's inability to manage significant behavioural problems.

The second case involved an infant under two months old brought into care due to the mother's mental health concerns.

Both cases were at the case conference stage with adjournments granted to allow the Children's Aid Societies to develop service plans consistent with the new statutory purposes and to report back to the court.

The defendant was tried on two informations: one containing four counts (care and control while impaired by alcohol or drug, care and control with blood alcohol exceeding legal limit, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana), and a second alleging stunt driving.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found a violation of section 10(b) but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The defendant was found guilty of over 80, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and stunt driving, but acquitted on the impaired charge.

A young person charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug brought a section 11(b) Charter motion alleging a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The Crown conceded the case was subject to the Jordan framework and that the total delay was approximately 19 months.

The court found no defence delay attributable to the applicant and determined that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have due to late disclosure of critical evidence, including a Centre of Forensic Sciences Report and a Drug Recognition Examination video.

The court granted the motion and stayed the charge.

The appellant appealed two sentences imposed for convictions under s. 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The first conviction arose from operating an uninsured motor vehicle in 2012, with a fine of $20,000 imposed in absentia in 2013.

The second conviction arose from operating an uninsured motor vehicle in 2013, with a fine of $25,000 and a six-month driving suspension imposed in absentia in 2014.

The court found errors in principle: the sentencing courts failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay and failed to account for the substantial fifteen-year gap between the appellant's prior convictions in the 1990s and the current offences.

The court reduced the fines and applied s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to provide mitigation based on exceptional circumstances, including the appellant's struggle with alcoholism and limited financial means.