Jody Lee Ostapiw

The accused, Cadence Beauparlant, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code, following an incident where a 17-year-old girl was fatally shot by a co-accused using the firearm Beauparlant brought to a party.

The court considered mitigating factors (no prior record at the time of the offence, youth, guilty plea) and numerous aggravating factors (reckless disregard for safety, flight from scene, continued drug trafficking, unrecovered firearm).

The judge emphasized the need for strong denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, noting the alarming increase in such crimes in Hamilton despite judicial calls for stricter sentences.

The court found the accused's rehabilitation prospects poor given his post-offence conduct.

A sentence of seven years in penitentiary, consecutive to existing sentences for drug trafficking, was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a non-communication order.

The defendant, Brian Tcheong, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, weighing aggravating factors such as the size and vile nature of the child pornography collection (350 images, 14 videos, Level 4 depravity) and the duration of accessing such material (almost 5 years).

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, consistent employment, strong family support, demonstrated insight, and significant upfront counselling (26 sessions).

The court also considered the defendant's mental health issues, including mild intellectual disability, autism spectrum features, and hoarding tendencies, as contributing factors to his actions.

The Crown sought 15 months institutional custody, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence order (CSO) due to the defendant's mental health.

The court rejected the CSO, emphasizing that conditional sentences for child pornography are only appropriate in exceptional cases and that a CSO would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed an 8-month institutional custody sentence, followed by three years probation with counselling, and other ancillary orders.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, renewed his application for judicial interim release based on a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and new sureties.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change but found its impact on the tertiary ground of detention minimal given the specific measures at the detention facility and the lack of specific evidence of the applicant's heightened vulnerability.

The court also found the proposed new sureties unsuitable due to evasive testimony.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, and the strength of the Crown's case.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for multiple charges including assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The applicant argued the Justice of the Peace erred in rejecting the initial surety and that new circumstances, including a revised release plan with a second surety, ankle bracelet monitoring, and the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted release.

The court dismissed the application, finding no error in the initial surety rejection and that the new plan, despite the pandemic, did not sufficiently address the flight risk, likelihood of re-offending, or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant, Robert Steven Wright, charged with first-degree murder, sought judicial interim release.

The court considered the application under the reverse onus provisions of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

While the secondary ground (public safety/reoffending) was not met due to the applicant's lack of criminal record and stable employment, the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) was central.

The court found the Crown's case, based on DNA and fingerprint evidence, to be very strong, bordering on overwhelming.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the violent circumstances, the potential lengthy imprisonment, and concerns regarding the proposed surety and release plan, the court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was dismissed.