Jack Matthew Little

The accused, Levan Hamilton, was found guilty after trial of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence sought five years, both less pre-sentence custody.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and nature of drugs (fentanyl), the accused's extensive criminal record, and repeated breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included some remorse, family support, efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of seven years concurrent for the drug offences and three years concurrent for proceeds of crime, resulting in a net sentence of three years in federal penitentiary after applying 1.5:1 credit for 946 days of pre-sentence custody.

The offender, Jesse Egan, was sentenced for possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking (110.64 grams).

The Crown sought 6-8 years imprisonment, classifying him as a mid-level trafficker, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation due to the pernicious nature of fentanyl and the national opioid crisis.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years house arrest followed by three years probation, highlighting the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including overcoming addiction, starting a business, and supporting his young family, and arguing his addiction stemmed from a prior injury.

The court found a conditional sentence unfit given the quantity and danger of fentanyl, and the offender's prior criminal record.

While acknowledging the offender's commendable rehabilitation and applying credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions (Downes and Duncan credit), the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of five years, reduced to four years and ten months after credit.

Peter Zenger was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and morphine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The case involved a voir dire to exclude evidence obtained from a search incident to arrest following a traffic stop for stunt driving.

The court found reasonable grounds for the stunt driving arrest but a Charter breach (s. 8) due to the officer's failure to articulate a valid purpose for the search incident to arrest.

However, applying the Grant analysis, the court admitted the evidence.

On the merits, the court accepted expert testimony and found Zenger guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in both cocaine and morphine, rejecting his credibility.

The court had reasonable doubt regarding the proceeds of crime charge, leading to an acquittal on that count.

The accused, Justin Thombs, brought a mid-trial Charter application under s. 8, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure of his vehicle.

The defence argued that new information regarding the grounds for the search emerged during the arresting officer's testimony, which was not disclosed pre-trial.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and lacked merit.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was not brought in a timely fashion and that the police had lawful grounds for the search incident to arrest, and that any potential breach regarding specific items would likely not warrant exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Easton Aiton-Poore, who pleaded guilty to six offences including possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited handgun.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the commercial nature of the drug operation, the significant quantities of drugs and money seized, and the dangerous combination of drugs and firearms.

Mitigating factors included the offender's young age (23), lack of prior criminal record, guilty pleas demonstrating remorse and acceptance of responsibility, supportive family, and productive engagement in pre-sentence custody (PSC) programming.

A key issue was a disagreement between Crown and Defence counsel regarding enhanced credit for PSC served during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an initial "joint submission" for a global 12-year sentence.

The court clarified that such a disagreement negates a true joint submission.

Ultimately, the court imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, reducing it by 3 months to account for the harsh conditions of COVID-19 related PSC, emphasizing that such conditions are collateral consequences impacting the sentence's fitness.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide a proper sample of breath into an approved screening device following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused applied to exclude all evidence of her failure or refusal based on alleged violations of her s. 10(b) Charter rights to counsel.

The court found that the accused was detained prior to the demand being made, that there was a realistic opportunity to consult counsel during the delay before the ASD arrived, and that her s. 10(b) rights were violated both at the scene and at the police station where her conversation with counsel was recorded.

The court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for breaking and entering a dairy farmer's residence, committing theft, and related offences.

The defendants were charged with jointly breaking and entering and stealing property, possessing stolen property, and possessing a stolen GPS.

One defendant was additionally charged with robbery for physically assaulting the homeowner during the break-in.

The other defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon for throwing a rock at the homeowner.

The trial judge convicted both defendants on the break and enter and theft charges, and on possession of property stolen from the residence.

One defendant was convicted of robbery, the other of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The charge regarding the stolen GPS was dismissed against both defendants due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of its stolen nature.