Jordan Michael Drexler

The court sentenced Abel Assefa for possession of a loaded, restricted firearm without a license, contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code.

The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, and the applicable sentencing principles, including the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, with periods of house arrest and curfew, and ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The decision addresses an application by Edwin Capehart to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged violations of his Charter rights, specifically regarding a warrantless download of cellphone data and the validity of two search warrants.

The court finds a breach of s. 8 of the Charter due to police delay in seeking a warrant after a warrantless download, but ultimately admits the evidence after a Grant analysis.

The court finds Capehart guilty on most counts, including firearms and drug offences, and not guilty on two counts.

The accused, Abel Assefa, was charged with multiple counts relating to drug trafficking and firearms offences following an undercover police investigation.

The court found the evidence sufficient to convict on the count of possession of a loaded restricted firearm but entered acquittals on all other counts, finding the circumstantial evidence did not establish knowledge, consent, or control over the drugs and firearms found in the apartment beyond a reasonable doubt.

R.D. was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference, and one count of invitation to sexual touching against N.W., a young child and his de facto stepdaughter.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, the victim's young age (6-7), multiple instances of abuse, and the offender's prior criminal record.

R.D. denied the offences and expressed no remorse.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and guided by R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years imprisonment, reduced to an effective sentence of 4 years after accounting for pre-sentence custody credits, including a substantial Duncan credit for harsh conditions at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

Edwin Capehart was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and choking to facilitate a sexual assault.

The court, considering aggravating factors such as premeditation, the significant size difference between the offender and victim, the use of choking, and the profound psychological harm to the victim, balanced these against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first offender status at the time of the offence, strong family support, difficult early life in a refugee camp, educational challenges, productive use of time in custody, and genuine remorse.

The court imposed an effective sentence of four years of imprisonment (inclusive of pre-sentence custody credit), followed by two years of probation, a restitution order of $3,000, a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The victim surcharge was waived due to undue hardship.

The Crown sought to admit a video-recorded statement of the complainant, N.W., into evidence at trial under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant was six years old at the time of the alleged sexual offences and made the statement seven years later when she was 13.

The respondent resisted the admission, arguing the statement was not taken within a "reasonable time." The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that a seven-year delay was too long to ensure an accurate and early account, and that the complainant, now 18, was capable of giving viva voce evidence, thus not fulfilling the primary purposes of the statutory provision.

This ruling addresses an application by the accused, Donald McCarthy, under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The proposed evidence included a prior consensual sexual encounter and discussions about a threesome, which the accused argued were relevant to the complainant's credibility due to alleged inconsistencies in her statements.

The court found no material inconsistency, noting the complainant's initial police statement was limited by specific police instructions.

The court determined the proposed evidence lacked significant probative value and was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, particularly considering the complainant's Indigenous identity and the private nature of the "Threesome Evidence." The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Rijah Martin, was charged with failing to comply with a roadside breath demand under s. 320.15 of the Criminal Code and a Highway Traffic Act offence.

She pleaded guilty to the HTA charge and not guilty to the Criminal Code charge, asserting a reasonable excuse due to an anxiety attack.

The court rejected her defence, finding her testimony untruthful and her failure to provide a breath sample deliberate.

The court also clarified the burden of proof for a reasonable excuse defence, holding that following the repeal of s. 794(2) of the Criminal Code, the accused only bears an evidentiary burden to establish an 'air of reality,' after which the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with Charter values.