Joaquin David Canton

The Crown sought to declare the defendant a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant opposed, arguing the criteria for dangerous offender were not met, and sought a long-term offender designation instead.

The court found that while the defendant had committed serious personal injury offences and exhibited a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable." The court designated the defendant a long-term offender under s. 753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, imposing a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (with credit for time served, leaving 113 days remaining) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, S.B., sought a s. 525 bail review for serious charges including attempt murder and firearm offences, having been in custody for over 90 days without a bail hearing.

The defence proposed a release plan involving residential and back-up sureties, and electronic monitoring, citing COVID-19 risks and potential trial delays.

The Crown opposed, citing S.B.'s extensive criminal record, including 14 breach-type offences and a manslaughter conviction, and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court found the proposed supervision plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of S.B. reoffending and determined that his continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the acknowledged risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the possibility of trial delays.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after driving approximately 50 meters while intoxicated.

The Crown conceded that the accused was impaired and had driven the vehicle.

The sole issue was whether the defence of necessity was available.

The accused testified that he was assaulted by a group of hostile males, one of whom brandished a knife, and that he drove to escape the imminent peril.

The court found that all three elements of the necessity defence were satisfied: there was clear and imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative existed, and the harm inflicted was proportionate to the harm avoided.

The accused was acquitted.