Joseph Hanna

The accused pleaded guilty to six offences arising from an incident in which he entered a police station with an airsoft gun and fired multiple times at officers and a civilian staff member, striking one officer in the leg.

The accused was motivated by suicidal ideation and intended to provoke police into shooting him.

The court imposed a sentence of one year imprisonment (9 months and 6 days after credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions), followed by two years' probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors (planning, danger to public, victim impact) against substantial mitigating factors (mental illness causal link, remorse, rehabilitation progress, no criminal record, and collateral consequences).

The accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

This decision addresses charges against Julian Kroll for impaired operation of a conveyance under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and possession of methamphetamine under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered evidence from police officers, a drug recognition evaluator (DRE), and a toxicologist.

Despite the accused initially self-representing, counsel was later retained and cross-examined witnesses.

The judge found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on observations of impairment, toxicology results, and the presumption under s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code corroborated by toxicological analysis.

The decision carefully weighs the credibility of witnesses and the limitations of evidence such as pupil dilation and inadmissible statements.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced S.T. to 8 months imprisonment for sexual assault of his spouse, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 30 days for breaches of court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violation of a position of trust, persistence despite victim resistance, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included S.T.'s lack of prior record, remorse for breaches, employment history, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to concerns about compliance and the seriousness of the offence.

A 10-year SOIRA order, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

This sentencing decision addresses serious domestic violence offences committed by K.B., who pleaded guilty to multiple counts including assault, assault with choking, threatening to damage property, threatening death, and theft.

The offender has a significant prior record for domestic violence offences in Alberta, including sexual assault and assault with a weapon, and had been paroled for over five years before reoffending.

The court carefully balanced aggravating factors such as the severity and multiplicity of offences and prior record, with mitigating factors including guilty pleas, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, remorse, and community support.

The total sentence imposed was 30 months imprisonment, with credit for 337 days pre-sentence custody and Summers credit, followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

This decision addresses multiple Charter challenges raised by Bambot Njei-Bentley in relation to his arrest for impaired operation and refusal to provide breath samples under the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the validity of the breath demand, the reasonableness of the arrest, and the police's compliance with the informational and implementational duties under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The judge found no breaches of sections 8, 9, or 10(b) rights that would warrant exclusion of evidence.

The Crown was found to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally and unequivocally refused to comply with a lawful breath demand without a reasonable excuse, resulting in a conviction on the refusal charge.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed on Crown's own admission.

Giuseppe Fazzina, a chronic recidivist with 74 prior convictions, including numerous impaired driving and driving while prohibited offences, pleaded guilty to two counts of driving with excessive blood alcohol, five counts of driving while prohibited, and four counts of failing to comply with an undertaking, stemming from five separate incidents between 2020 and 2023.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive and related criminal record, being on parole, high impairment levels, and dangerous driving, and mitigating factors including guilty pleas and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge emphasized deterrence, denunciation, and separation from society as dominant objectives, finding rehabilitation not a significant factor.

A total sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, less credit for time served, along with lifetime and 10-year driving prohibitions and a DNA order.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol concentration.

He brought Charter applications to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including issues with body-worn cameras, reasonable and probable grounds for arrest/breath demand, and the right to counsel of choice and language-based special circumstances.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no breaches.

The Crown successfully proved the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt based on observations of impairment and breath test results.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, Shawn Folkes, brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter.

The total delay was 19 months and 1 day, with a net delay of 18.5 months after deducting 16 days of defence delay.

This exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling for summary conviction matters.

The Crown argued that the delay in arresting Mr. Folkes (May 12, 2023, to August 27, 2023) should be considered a deductible discrete event due to police safety concerns.

However, the court found that the police did not make reasonable efforts to arrest or contact Mr. Folkes, despite knowing his residence and having previous contact information.

The Crown failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonably unavoidable or that reasonable steps were taken to remedy it.

Consequently, the presumption of unreasonable delay was not rebutted, and the application was allowed, staying the charges.

The Crown applied for an order under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to cross-examine two witnesses, Mandi Lalonde and John Lalonde, in the trial of Shawn Folkes, who is self-represented and charged with five offences including uttering threats and mischief.

The Crown argued that the charges were "in respect of" criminal harassment, making the order mandatory under s. 486.3(2), or alternatively, discretionary under s. 486.3(3) to ensure full and candid testimony given the witnesses' fear.

The court granted the application, finding that the charges were substantively "in respect of" criminal harassment and that appointing counsel was in the interest of the proper administration of justice, dismissing the accused's concerns about bias and counsel's preparedness.

Maisum Ansari was charged with breaching a release order's curfew condition, obstructing a peace officer, and impersonation.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction and impersonation but not guilty to the breach.

The court found that the defendant violated his curfew by engaging in activities unrelated to work or direct travel to/from work, such as socializing at a parking lot, discussing an electric vehicle charger, and consuming alcohol at a friend's residence.

The court determined that the Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant's asserted "lawful excuse" (lack of control, cost of alternative transport) was objectively unreasonable and disproven.

The defendant was found guilty of breaching his release order.

In a criminal trial for assault, the Crown sought to admit the complainant's video-recorded statement as hearsay evidence under the principled exception, as the complainant was unavailable.

The defence conceded necessity but challenged threshold reliability.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish threshold reliability, primarily due to the absence of cross-examination and the lack of compelling corroborative evidence.

The complainant's credibility was also undermined by factors such as drug use, a prior fraud conviction, and inconsistencies in her statement.

Consequently, the Crown's application was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.