Joseph Perfetto

The Appellant, Young Min Shon, appealed a 10-month jail sentence for assaulting his 12-year-old son, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the punitive effect of his impending deportation and that a shorter custodial sentence would suffice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence was not demonstrably unfit and fell within the acceptable range for the offence.

The court held that the sentencing judge's silence on immigration consequences did not constitute an error impacting the sentence, as deportation was a direct result of the conviction itself, not the length of the custodial term, and the trial judge was fully aware of these consequences.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a police interview.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary due to subtle promises, oppressive circumstances, and a breach of his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found no improper threats, promises, or oppression, and that the accused had an operating mind.

The court concluded the statements were voluntary and admissible.

Two accused were jointly charged with human trafficking offences, including unlawfully recruiting and exercising control over a young woman for the purpose of exploiting her in the sex trade, receiving financial benefits from sexual services, advertising sexual services, procuring for sexual services, and unlawful confinement.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a young mother with a history of drug use and involvement with child protective services.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, arguing she fabricated allegations to avoid losing custody of her child.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite inconsistencies noted by initial police responders.

The court convicted both accused of human trafficking and procurement offences, finding they exercised control and direction over the complainant through threats and coercion, causing her to provide sexual services against her will.

One accused was also convicted of receiving financial benefits from the offences and breaching probation conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL causing death.

The accused, aged 24, consumed alcohol at a bar and then drove his father's vehicle through the Western University campus at excessive speed, striking and killing an 18-year-old first-year student.

The accused's blood alcohol concentration was 171 mg/100 mL, more than twice the legal limit.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment and a ten-year driving prohibition, emphasizing general deterrence as the paramount sentencing principle in impaired driving causing death cases.

A young Aboriginal offender, age 18 at sentencing (17 at the time of offences), was convicted of two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possessing a firearm without a licence.

The offender fired two shots at police officers during an armed confrontation, resulting in the offender being shot four times by police.

The offender sustained severe injuries including loss of sight in one eye, brain injury, and permanent nerve damage.

The court imposed a 24-month probation sentence with strict conditions rather than custody, applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, background of intergenerational trauma from residential schools, history of bullying, and significant physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of the incident.

The Crown brought several pre‑trial applications in a homicide prosecution seeking to admit statements made by the accused to police, evidence of disreputable conduct, post‑offence conduct, and hearsay statements of the deceased reflecting her state of mind prior to death.

The court reviewed the principled approach to hearsay admissibility, including the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability, and the balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

Numerous statements by the deceased to friends, family, and others were admitted where they reliably reflected her state of mind and potential motive related to the accused, while other statements were excluded as overly prejudicial, too remote, or constituting inadmissible hearsay about past events.

The court also ruled that various evidence of the accused’s alleged disreputable conduct and post‑offence behaviour could be admitted as circumstantial evidence relevant to motive and concealment.