James Charlton Dunda

The 19-year-old offender pled guilty to possessing a loaded firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and failing to comply with a release order.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of carrying a loaded handgun in public and showing it to young girls, alongside mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, and the impact of anti-Black racism and trauma as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to 3 years in custody minus enhanced pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The court considered charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a person under 16, and assault against E.V. involving two complainants, S.A. and K.A., who were sisters.

The court analyzed the admissibility and weight of similar fact evidence, the credibility and reliability of the complainants and the accused, and the requirements for conviction on each count.

E.V. was found guilty of sexual interference in relation to K.A. (the car incident), and not guilty on the remaining charges.

The offender was found guilty of one global count of sexual assault and one global count of invitation to sexual touching involving his biological daughter, aged 11-14, over a four-year period.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim.

The offender, a 65-year-old first-time offender, received a four-year concurrent sentence for sexual assault and two years for invitation to sexual touching, along with ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, no-contact order, and SOIRA registration.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation after severely injuring a man visiting the mother of the offender's child.

The Crown sought 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 4 to 6 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years for the aggravated assault.

The court also awarded 3 years and 2 months of pre-sentence custody credit, which included 14 months of enhanced credit under the Duncan framework due to the harsh conditions of the 426 days the offender spent in segregation.

The self-represented applicant, having been convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation, applied prior to sentencing to vacate the finding of guilt and declare a mistrial.

He alleged breaches of his Charter rights due to the Crown's failure to disclose evidence and ineffective assistance by his trial counsel, particularly regarding an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting DNA evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no merit to the disclosure complaints and concluding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding a tactical decision was better suited for an appeal where a proper evidentiary record could be established.

The accused, Coltt Roberts, was charged with aggravated assault and breach of two probation orders.

The case was circumstantial, relying on video evidence, DNA, and the testimony of the victim's son, as the primary witness's (Ms. McKenzie's) testimony was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential manipulation.

The court applied the rule in Hodge's Case, finding that the reliable evidence established the accused's exclusive opportunity and motive to assault the victim.

The court dismissed alternative explanations as speculative and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder in a stabbing death, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but argued for detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the accused's attempts to interfere with the investigation and the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the proposed plan of release, involving strict house arrest and substantial sureties, addressed the secondary ground concerns.

Regarding the tertiary ground, the court noted weaknesses in the Crown's case for first-degree murder and concluded that releasing the accused on strict terms would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted.