Julian Lalande

Miles Kempffer-Hossack pleaded guilty to multiple counts of firearms transfer, possession of firearms without a licence, and possession of Schedule I drugs for the purpose of trafficking, arising from an Ottawa Police investigation (Project Sabotage) into gun violence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and prohibited nature of the weapons, the presence of a booby-trapped window and explosive devices, and the dangerous combination of drugs and guns.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior criminal record, guilty plea, and demonstrated efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a 10-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 9 years, less pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

A 26-year-old Inuit street person with severe alcohol and drug addiction was convicted of nine offences including assault, mischief, and breaching court orders.

He faced a mandatory victim surcharge of $900 ($100 per offence) under section 737 of the Criminal Code.

Living on social assistance with a monthly income of $250, the accused challenged the constitutionality of the victim surcharge provision, arguing it violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that the victim surcharge constitutes punishment and that imposing it on an indigent offender in these circumstances would be grossly disproportionate, both as applied to the accused and in reasonable hypothetical cases.

The court declared section 737 of no force or effect.

The accused was tried on multiple counts including procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution of a minor, human trafficking of a person under 18, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, assault, and breaches of recognizance.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured a vulnerable 17‑year‑old complainant to another city, exercised control over her movements, used threats and violence, arranged hotel rooms and online advertisements for sexual services, and collected the proceeds from prostitution.

The defence argued the complainant voluntarily engaged in sex work and that the accused believed she was an adult.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and corroborated by documentary evidence and third‑party witnesses, rejecting the accused’s account.

The court found the accused exercised control and coercion over the complainant and knowingly exploited her as a minor.