Jason Alsbergas

The offender pleaded not guilty but accepted an agreed statement of fact regarding three offences: break and enter a dwelling house, sexual assault, and uttering threats to cause death.

The offender, a 20-year-old first offender with no criminal record, broke into a neighbour's home at night while intoxicated, confined and threatened the occupants, and sexually assaulted one of them.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a remaining custodial term of 43 months.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, rehabilitative potential, and family support as mitigating factors, but emphasized the serious and violent nature of the offences and their significant impact on the victim and her family.

The offender pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death under section 220(b) of the Criminal Code.

She left her very young son, who had significant developmental delays and autism spectrum disorder, unattended in a bathtub with approximately 8 inches of water for 2-3 minutes while retrieving laundry.

Upon her return, the child was face down in the water and unresponsive, and was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months of probation, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence order.

The court found that while mitigating factors existed, the aggravating factors—including the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the series of negligent acts following the initial abandonment—warranted a custodial sentence.

The appellant, Norman Perry, appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting his own, especially given his acquittal on a related break and enter charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were discernable in context, allowed for meaningful appellate review, and that the two verdicts were reconcilable.

Omar Thomas was found guilty of five charges related to a convenience store robbery (robbery, disguise with intent, three probation breaches) and later pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property and failure to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 52 months jail, while the Defence sought time served, arguing for Downes and Duncan credits.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the robbery, the use of a weapon, the vulnerable victim, and the offender's extensive criminal record with prior robbery convictions.

Mitigating factors included family support, traumatic childhood experiences, substance abuse issues, and expressions of remorse.

The court rejected Downes credit due to bail breaches and lack of evidence for employment seeking, but considered harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit) as a mitigating factor.

The final sentence was 4 years jail for the robbery-related offences, with the 4-month sentence for the later offences served concurrently, resulting in a global sentence of 4 years less pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, Omar Thomas, was charged with three convenience store robberies and related charges.

Identity was the central issue.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, circumstantial evidence including clothing and DNA, and text messages.

The court applied principles from R. v. Nikolovski regarding identification from video and the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty of the April 25, 2020 robbery based on strong circumstantial evidence, including DNA on discarded gloves and incriminating text messages.

However, the court found him not guilty of the March 7 and April 8, 2020 robberies due to insufficient evidence to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the extent of disguise and lack of sufficiently distinctive corroborating evidence.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence in a robbery trial against Omar Thomas, both for the three current charges (count-to-count) and for four prior robbery convictions from 2011, to prove identity.

The court applied the two-stage test for similar fact evidence, focusing on the degree of similarity and the objective improbability of coincidence.

The court found that the similarities between the current robberies were generic and lacked sufficient uniqueness, and that the nine-year gap and different modus operandi (e.g., use of bear/pepper spray in 2011, absence in 2020) made the prior convictions dissimilar.

Consequently, the Crown's application for the admission of similar fact evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant.

The accused challenged the issuance of the warrant under section 8 of the Charter, asserting insufficient credible and reliable evidence.

The court applied the test from R. v. Garofoli and R. v. Pires; R. v. Lising, denying leave to cross-examine on all proposed areas.

The court found no evidentiary foundation showing the affiant knew or ought to have known that information in the ITO was false or misleading, and that proposed cross-examination would not assist in determining whether the warrant could have issued.