Joel G. Belisle

The accused pleaded guilty to abducting a nine-year-old child after luring him into his vehicle with ice cream and a toy.

The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge, arguing the incident was a 'cultural misunderstanding' that would result in severe immigration consequences.

The court rejected the cultural misunderstanding defence and found that the gravity of the offence required a custodial sentence to address denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months' custody followed by three years' probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to firearm offences after discharging a rifle outside her brother's residence during a domestic dispute with her ex-partner.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, noting her commitment to rehabilitation while in custody.

Given the Crown's case was not overwhelming, the court placed significant weight on the guilty plea as an expression of remorse.

The offender was sentenced to time served (648 days enhanced credit) plus one day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, charged under a 13-count indictment, brought an application for the disclosure of unredacted police notes and source documents.

The Crown resisted the application, claiming the redacted information was protected by confidential informant privilege.

Following an in camera Basi hearing, the court found that the individual who provided the information had an expectation of confidentiality and was a confidential informant, not a police agent.

The court scheduled a further in camera hearing to review the unredacted material to determine if any portions could be disclosed to the defence.

The offender pleaded guilty to 14 amended counts involving multiple break and enters into residential laundry rooms, thefts from laundry machines, damage to property, a theft from Canadian Tire, and a breach of recognizance.

The offences occurred between December 2018 and February 2019, with the offender committing further offences while on bail.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed 15 months incarceration with credit for 419 days of pre-sentence custody (including 90 days for harsh conditions), resulting in 36 additional days to serve, followed by three years probation with conditions including counselling, mental health treatment, and restitution orders.

The moving co-defendant sought leave to amend its defence to assert crossclaims for contribution and indemnity against a co-defendant arising from an inmate slip-and-fall claim at a correctional institution.

The court held that all substantive aspects of the proposed crossclaim were claims for contribution and indemnity governed by ss. 4, 5 and 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, including the contractual additional-insured theory.

Although the court concluded that the contribution and indemnity limitation period is subject to discoverability, the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence of due diligence to rebut the presumption that the claim was discovered when it was served with the main action, or at the latest by discovery when the accident location was pinpointed.

The proposed crossclaim was therefore statute-barred and the motion was dismissed, with costs payable forthwith to the responding co-defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an order striking out its statement of defence and dismissing its counterclaim, which was obtained without notice after the defendant failed to comply with an earlier order requiring it to satisfy undertakings.

The court reviewed conflicting case law on whether an order obtained without notice pursuant to an earlier order made on notice falls under Rule 37.14(1)(a).

The court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but declined to set aside the order, finding the defendant's complete and ongoing failure to comply with its undertakings and court orders justified the dismissal.

The motion and a supplemental motion to set aside the noting in default were dismissed.