Kathryn Ginn

The accused, Raymond Santos Escutin, brought an application alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) right to counsel due to an arbitrary delay by the police officer in providing rights and caution, exacerbated by the officer's misunderstanding of the "without delay" requirement and eliciting incriminating information during the delay.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the state's conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples.

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

This sentencing decision addresses a young adult offender who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm into a public place and armed robbery.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the dangerous use of a firearm in a public establishment, against significant mitigating factors such as the offender's genuine remorse, positive pre-sentence report, challenging upbringing, and guilty pleas entered despite triable issues.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of two years less one day, comprising twelve months imprisonment followed by a twelve-month less one day conditional sentence order, plus a three-year probation order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The sentence was noted as being at the very low end of the range for such offences, justified by the unique mitigating circumstances.

The defendant, Cody Moreau, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of Gladue principles.

The court found the Gladue principles inapplicable due to insufficient objective evidence of Indigenous ancestry or connection to an Indigenous community.

The offence involved extreme violence, a two-on-one attack, and stomping on a helpless victim, resulting in severe head injury.

Moreau had a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm and was on probation at the time.

Despite mitigating factors such as a difficult upbringing, substance abuse issues, and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

A Toronto Police Service officer pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by destroying or converting evidence to his own use.

During the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary, the officer stole three cannabis-infused chocolate bars that had been overlooked during the search.

He later consumed one of the bars while on duty and armed with a firearm, resulting in severe intoxication.

His impaired state led him to make a false officer-in-need-of-assistance call, which caused responding officers to rush to the scene.

One officer was seriously injured in the response.

The evidence tampering resulted in the withdrawal of criminal charges against seven persons.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite the officer's otherwise exemplary 13-year career, finding that a conviction and conditional sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the rule of law and denounce the egregious breach of public trust.