Jeffrey Ian Halberstadt

Sentencing of two co-accused following a judge-alone trial.

The first accused, a repeat offender with a lengthy record, was convicted of multiple firearms offences, assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, and driving offences.

After applying the Kienapple rule to stay several duplicative counts, the court sentenced him to a total of 10 years in custody.

The second accused, who had a limited record and demonstrated significant rehabilitation, was convicted of being an occupant in a vehicle with a firearm and possession of cocaine.

The court sentenced the second accused to an 18-month conditional sentence.

The accused faced multiple firearms, driving, and drug charges arising from two incidents in August 2019.

In the first incident, one accused threatened his ex-girlfriend with a handgun.

In the second, both accused were found in a vehicle and residence where a loaded handgun and cocaine were seized.

At trial, two key Crown witnesses recanted their prior statements to police, prompting the Crown to successfully apply under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine them.

The court found the first accused guilty of multiple firearms offences, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, driving while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The second accused was found guilty of occupying a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm and simple possession of cocaine.

The accused, Andrew Medford, was found guilty on all five counts of a criminal indictment following a trial without a jury.

The charges included sexual assault with a weapon (knife), choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, assault, and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The court accepted the complainant's testimony, finding that an initial consensual sexual encounter became non-consensual when the complainant attempted to withdraw consent.

DNA evidence linked the accused to the scene, and an eyewitness corroborated parts of the physical altercation.

The court addressed inconsistencies in witness testimony and the complainant's credibility, including her history of drug use and prior dishonesty, ultimately finding her evidence reliable regarding the essential elements of the offences.