Jacqueline Masse

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving, possession of loaded prohibited firearms, and possession of marijuana.

This decision concerns her sentencing.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the accused's personal circumstances, including systemic racism and a difficult upbringing, and the principles of sentencing, particularly denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Applying the principles from R. c.

Morris regarding systemic racism and the availability of conditional sentences, the court imposed a global conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 18 months of probation, a lifetime weapons prohibition for certain items and 10 years for others, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

A fine and driving suspension were also imposed for the Highway Traffic Act offence.

An 18-year-old defendant pleaded guilty to mischief by sending bomb threats via digitized voice messages to a residential property and a group home, and to failure to comply with a youth probation order.

The defendant was on probation at the time of the offences.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with probation, finding that despite the defendant's significant youth record for serious offences and the seriousness of the conduct, a discharge was in the defendant's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The court emphasized the defendant's mental health diagnoses, genuine remorse, cooperation with police, engagement in rehabilitation programming, and the collateral consequences of converting the youth record to an adult record.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire on Charter issues.

The Crown's evidence established grounds for the traffic stop, roadside demand, and breath demand.

The defendant's expert evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000C results, particularly concerning an ambient fail that occurred during testing and potential interfering substances in the breath room.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of accuracy and entered an acquittal.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a suitable breath sample at a roadside stop.

The Crown alleged that while detained at the roadside, the accused failed without reasonable excuse to provide a breath sample.

The accused argued that his limited English comprehension created special circumstances requiring a Tamil interpreter, and that he did not wilfully refuse.

The court found that although the accused had limited English fluency and the officer's manner of instruction was rushed and impatient, the accused demonstrated sufficient understanding through his responses and actions.

The court applied the legal principle that wilfulness is not an essential mens rea element for this offence; knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act is sufficient.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to provide a breath sample.