Joe Louch

The accused, Coby McPherson, pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm and possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the brazen nature of the shooting in a residential complex and the accused's lengthy criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as his youth, difficult upbringing, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court applied the mandatory minimum sentence of four years for discharging a firearm, giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

For the possession offence, a consecutive sentence of two months was imposed, taking into account the accused's understanding at the time of his plea and the goal of keeping him within the reformatory system rather than penitentiary.

The accused challenged the admissibility of cell phone evidence, including videos and images, on the basis of a Section 8 Charter violation (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found that all four accused had standing to bring the challenge.

While the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the cell phones was facially insufficient, the court considered additional information from an earlier search warrant (Appendix D) during the Section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis.

The court determined that the Section 8 violation, though present, was not very serious, and while it had a significant impact on privacy interests, the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, particularly given the reliable and important nature of the evidence (videos depicting illegal handgun possession), outweighed the breach.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

A youth was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking following a police raid on an apartment.

The Crown alleged the accused moved a white plastic bag containing 89.76 grams of cocaine using his foot while police were present.

The accused conceded possession of 1.19 grams of crack cocaine found sewn into his pants.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the larger quantity of cocaine in the white bag for purposes of trafficking, or alternatively, whether he was in joint or constructive possession of drugs in the apartment or was a party to the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of simple possession of the crack cocaine on his person but acquitted him of possession for purposes of trafficking on both counts.

The accused were convicted of discharging a firearm into a residential home and mischief under $5000.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years imprisonment on each accused, with credit for presentence custody.

The offence involved firing multiple bullets into a home in the early morning hours, with one bullet narrowly missing a sleeping child.

The court found the shooting was planned and deliberate, targeting the home of a family member of a drug dealer.

Weapons prohibition orders for 10 years and DNA orders were imposed.

The accused were charged with discharging a firearm and mischief under $500 for firing a rifle into a residential home, narrowly missing an occupant.

The Crown alleged that Mohammed was the shooter and Rodney was the driver.

The Crown's case relied on direct and circumstantial identification evidence, which standing alone was insufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof.

The Crown also called a jailhouse informant to buttress the identification evidence.

The court found that while the informant was an unsavoury character with a lengthy criminal record, certain elements of his testimony were corroborated by evidence not available to the public, thereby enhancing his reliability.

The court concluded that the combination of identification evidence and the informant's testimony satisfied the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a customer service representative for Service Ontario, was charged with breach of trust under Criminal Code s. 122 for unlawfully permitting private information to be made available to unauthorized persons.

The Crown established through forensic analysis that the accused conducted multiple database inquiries regarding license plates that appeared on documents and phones seized from gang members involved in Project Battery, a multi-police force investigation into rival street gangs.

The accused's testimony that she was too busy to notice who was in front of her, that rogue operators may have conducted some transactions, or that she was merely confirming identities was rejected as self-serving and contrived.

The court found a consistent and disturbing pattern of cancelled transactions involving data licensing changes that resulted in the release of registered owners' names and addresses to unauthorized persons, including inquiries regarding a detective's personal vehicle with no legitimate purpose.

The court found the accused guilty of breach of trust.

A 17-year-old offender pled guilty to assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising from a premeditated revenge attack on three individuals outside their home.

The offender, armed with a knife, participated in a coordinated group assault that resulted in serious injuries to one victim requiring two surgeries.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days with 45 days of community supervision, followed by 24 months of probation, balancing the serious nature of the offence and the offender's significant participation against mitigating factors including no prior record, guilty plea, lengthy pre-sentence house arrest, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

A youth was convicted of robbery and use of an imitation firearm to commit robbery.

The Crown sought a serious violent offence (SVO) designation and a custodial sentence of 6-8 months.

The defence argued for open custody with substantial credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found the SVO threshold met and imposed a sentence of 90 days custody followed by 45 days community supervision and 18 months probation, with the custody to be served in an open facility.

The court considered the offender's significant mental health issues, history of instability, lack of remorse, and the serious psychological harm to the victim, balanced against the offender's youth and the rehabilitation plan developed by his support team.