J. Mazin

Sentencing for unlawful act manslaughter arising from the accused's trafficking of cocaine laced with fentanyl, which caused the death of the purchaser's brother.

The accused, a cocaine dealer, sold what he believed to be cocaine, but the substance was a mixture of cocaine and fentanyl.

The court found that trafficking in dangerous illegal drugs for profit, resulting in death, engages the paramount sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

After reviewing the sentencing range of three to eight years for drug-trafficking-predicated manslaughter, the court imposed a mid-range sentence of five years, less presentence custody credit, considering the accused's lengthy criminal record as an aggravating factor and the absence of intentional fentanyl trafficking as a mitigating factor.

The defendant was charged with manslaughter in connection with the death of Robert Davies, who died from an overdose of fentanyl and cocaine.

The Crown alleged that the defendant sold a mixture of cocaine and fentanyl to Matthew Grout, who purchased the drugs on behalf of himself, Robert Davies, and Sheldon Gittens.

All three consumed the substance at Davies' residence, resulting in Davies' death.

The court found that the defendant committed the predicate offence of trafficking in a controlled substance, that the trafficking presented an objectively foreseeable risk of bodily harm, and that the defendant's unlawful act was a legal cause of Davies' death.

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter.

The court considered the admissibility of a videorecorded statement made by the accused, Jeremy Folk, to police in a manslaughter case.

The statement was challenged on the grounds of voluntariness and alleged breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while the statement was voluntary, the police failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the accused to consult with counsel of choice before the interview.

As a result, the statement was excluded from evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, N.D.H., was charged with multiple sexual offences against a child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and unclear on significant points.

The defence established a motive to fabricate based on the complainant’s upset over having her electronic devices taken away.

The court found the accused’s evidence credible and acquitted him, holding that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Three young persons, aged 15 at the time of offences, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and sexual assault with a weapon arising from locker room incidents at an elite private school in fall 2018.

One of the three also pleaded guilty to making child pornography.

The court imposed community-based sentences of two years probation with conditions, 30 hours community service, and weapons prohibitions.

The sentencing decision extensively examined the school's bullying and hazing culture as contextual factors, the diminished moral culpability of youth, and the rehabilitative potential of the offenders.

The court rejected the Crown's request for custody, finding that community dispositions with targeted therapeutic interventions were appropriate.

The accused was convicted of two counts of assault, one count of threatening death, and one count of assault causing bodily harm arising from domestic violence incidents against his former wife.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence to be served intermittently, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or, alternatively, a conditional sentence of 3-4 months.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of four months to be served in the community, followed by 12 months of probation, finding that while a custodial sentence was appropriate given the domestic violence context, the accused's lack of criminal record, successful completion of anger management programming, and lengthy bail period with curfew conditions without breach supported a conditional sentence that could satisfy principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Five individuals were jointly charged with aggravated assault arising from an attack on the victim in an apartment building hallway.

The victim was struck with a beer bottle and stabbed multiple times.

The Crown's case depended entirely on eyewitness identification by the victim.

During trial, the Crown withdrew charges against one accused.

The court found that the victim credibly identified two of the remaining accused as the direct perpetrators of the assault.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish that the other two accused were parties to the assault, as the Crown's theory relied on speculation regarding their knowledge and intent.

The court also harboured reasonable doubt regarding one of the weapon possession charges.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm (a handgun) while not being authorized to do so, contrary to s. 99(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that during ongoing drug trafficking transactions with an undercover officer, the accused made a clear and sincere offer to obtain a handgun for $2,500.

The defence argued the offer was not serious and lacked sufficient particularity.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the defence evidence as unreliable and accepting the officer's testimony.

The court also dismissed the defence application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, finding that the accused, not the officer, initiated the firearm discussions and that the officer did not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offence.