J. Prosser

Three young men were convicted by jury of aggravated assault following an unprovoked group attack on a social worker protecting a vulnerable child at a hotel in London, Ontario on December 29, 2021.

The victim was stabbed five times and suffered multiple injuries.

The court sentenced the offenders to terms of imprisonment, considering their youth, refugee backgrounds, family support systems, and immigration consequences, while emphasizing the serious nature of the group violence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of Crown expert evidence in a criminal trial concerning firearm offences.

The Crown sought to introduce opinion evidence from Sgt. Peter Reinjtes regarding firearm classification, functioning, and comparison, specifically to link a seized firearm to one seen in a social media video, and to comment on the firearm's prevalence.

The defence conceded classification and functioning but contested the comparison and prevalence evidence.

Applying the Mohan framework, the court found the comparison evidence logically relevant and necessary to assist the trier of fact, particularly regarding unique markings and their significance.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on the firearm's prevalence, deeming it unreliable due to a lack of normative data and reliance on anecdotal experience.

The assessment of the expert's duty to the court was reserved for further inquiry during the trial.

The defendant, Jason Borden, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and proceeded to trial on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The court reviewed video evidence and witness testimony, making detailed findings of fact regarding an altercation between Borden and Darius Salmon.

Borden raised defences of self-defence and accident.

The court found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and even if there were, Borden's actions were not reasonable given the circumstances, as Salmon was unarmed and did not physically threaten Borden before the gun was drawn.

The court also rejected the defence of accident, finding Borden's testimony regarding the gun's discharge not credible.

Consequently, Borden was found guilty on all three remaining counts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing pursuant to Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking a timetable for remaining steps in a subrogated action arising from water damage caused by a fire suppression system.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the action should be dismissed for delay.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay of over three years and failed to tender any evidence to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The action was dismissed for delay with costs.

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 85 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court applied the R. v. Nur framework, determined a proportionate sentence of five months' incarceration, and found that the mandatory minimum of one year consecutive (resulting in a 17-month sentence after considering pre-trial credit) was grossly disproportionate, thus violating the defendant's s. 12 Charter rights.

The mandatory minimum was declared of no force and effect, and a sentence of 5 months imprisonment (less 38 days credit) plus probation was imposed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial for charges arising from a home invasion robbery on July 30, 2017.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, robbery, break and enter with assault, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon.

The Crown relied on video surveillance evidence rather than eyewitness identification.

The accused challenged committal, arguing the video quality was insufficient to identify him.

The court found the video was not sufficiently clear for direct identification but constituted circumstantial evidence of identity when considered with the accused's arrest the following day while wearing the same shirt seen in the video and being found in the registered vehicle of a co-accused.