J. Randall Barrs

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a lookout in a planned armed robbery of a drug dealer, during which an accomplice shot and killed the victim.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought less than 5 years.

The court considered the offender's lower level of culpability (objective foresight of risk), his early guilty plea, remorse, and mental health challenges.

The court also applied significant mitigation for the harsh conditions of his presentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and the collateral consequences of his vulnerability to assault in custody due to his plea.

The offender was sentenced to 6.5 years' imprisonment before statutory credit.

The defendants were successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action and sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing the evidentiary record on the motion was incomplete and the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the evidentiary record, noting the plaintiff was represented by counsel and chose not to file responding evidence.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $44,644.28 to be reasonable, proportionate, and within the range the plaintiff would reasonably expect to pay.

Costs were fixed in that amount.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing two individuals sitting in a vehicle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his mother, believing she was about to be run over by the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that the vehicle was parked and not moving, and that the accused stabbed the victims out of revenge for earlier physical altercations.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defence and found him guilty of all charges.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his language barriers, physical limitations, and alternative explanations for his erratic driving.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no misapprehension of evidence, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the totality of the evidence, including police and civilian witness testimony, and that the findings of fact were reasonably supported.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a handgun seized during execution of a search warrant at his residence, arguing violations of s. 8 of the Charter relating to the sufficiency of the information to obtain the warrant, use of the telewarrant procedure, and the manner of the dynamic nighttime entry.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have granted the warrant based on credible information from a confidential informant corroborated in part by police investigation.

The court further found that resort to the telewarrant procedure was justified because it was impracticable to appear before a justice in person late on a Sunday evening.

The dynamic nighttime entry using a tactical police team was also reasonable given the risk posed by firearms and the potential destruction or relocation of evidence.

In the alternative, even if a Charter breach had occurred, the firearm would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and central to the prosecution.