Jason Gilbert

The three offenders were convicted of firearms trafficking and related offences.

Prior to sentencing, they applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unconstitutional post-verdict delay.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the delay fell below the 5-month presumptive ceiling established in Charley after deducting defence delay and the discrete event of a constitutional challenge.

On sentencing, the court found the mandatory minimum under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code had been struck down and was inapplicable.

Saberi and Montgiraud, both youthful first offenders with lower moral blameworthiness, received conditional sentences of 20 months.

Bruce, who facilitated three separate transactions and possessed drugs for trafficking, received a custodial sentence of 22 months.

During a sentencing hearing for three offenders convicted of firearms offences, the Crown argued the court should conduct a fresh constitutional analysis of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code, despite previous Superior Court decisions declaring it unconstitutional.

The court held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ferguson, a declaration of invalidity under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act effectively removes the provision from the statute books.

Therefore, the previous declarations of invalidity are binding on courts of coordinate jurisdiction, and the mandatory minimum sentence is of no force and effect.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault against his former partner, as well as assault against their infant son.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant.

The trial judge found numerous significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding her motivations for wanting the accused out of the house, the timing of her seeking legal advice for custody, and her explanation for the lack of visible facial injuries.

Due to these credibility and reliability concerns, the court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a trial to have the child returned to her care.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's instability, ongoing substance abuse issues, and failure to present a viable plan of care.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the paternal grandparents and granted them custody, with access to the parents at the grandparents' discretion.

The offender, a 26-year-old member of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine, and breach of recognizance.

Despite the usual range for such offences being a penitentiary term, the court emphasized the offender's severe lifelong addictions, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the potential loss of his military career.

The court imposed a sentence of 60 days intermittent custody followed by a 12-month conditional sentence to allow the offender to maintain his employment and continue treatment.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 51 months.

After deducting 15.5 months of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was 35.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay based on reasonable reliance on the previous state of the law.

The court found the delay unconstitutional and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of three children for the purpose of adoption by their paternal aunt.

The children were apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence.

While the mother had recently made commendable progress in addressing her addictions and mental health issues, the court found her plan of care carried substantial risk of future breakdown.

The children were thriving in the stable care of their kin family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without an access order, leaving access to a potential openness agreement.

Following a jury conviction for sexual interference involving a 12‑year‑old complainant, the court proceeded to sentence after staying a sexual assault conviction pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The offence involved a brief incident in which the accused sexually touched and kissed a child while alone in a residence.

The court considered denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for sexual offences against children, while also weighing rehabilitation due to the offender’s youth, impulsivity issues, and low assessed risk of recidivism.

Aggravating factors included the complainant’s age, the power imbalance between the adult offender and the child, and the psychological impact on the complainant.

The accused was sentenced to six months’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation with multiple conditions, along with ancillary orders including a s. 161 prohibition, DNA order, SOIRA registration, and weapons prohibition.