Imitation firearm

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Heeralall Ramdeo from convictions for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit an assault, and possession of an imitation firearm for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s reliance on the evidence of the complainant, a Vetrovec witness, nor in the application of the W.(D.) standard or the assessment of credibility.

The court held that the trial judge properly scrutinized the evidence, found sufficient confirmatory evidence, and gave detailed reasons for his findings.

This decision concerns the trial of Jevor Brown, who was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, using an imitation firearm to commit sexual assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault as a party with another, arising from an incident at 111 Bathurst Street, Toronto, on July 10, 2019.

Brown conceded to having non-consensual intercourse with the complainant, K.M., while his co-accused, Shayne Codrington, was also sexually assaulting her.

The main issues were whether the defence of duress applied, and whether Brown was a party to the offences involving the firearm and confinement.

The court found Brown's evidence of duress not credible or reliable, and concluded the Crown had disproved all elements of the duress defence.

Brown was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ransom Dashner to a 12-month conditional sentence order to be served in the community for Assault with a Weapon and Breach of Probation.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors reflecting Dashner’s Indigenous heritage, intergenerational trauma, and rehabilitative efforts including sobriety and treatment programs.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offence involving an imitation firearm used in a violent street fight while Dashner was on probation.

The decision balances the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint, rejecting a suspended sentence and probation as insufficient given the offender’s history and the public safety risk.

Gurlal Dhillon pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, dangerous driving, and breaching a youth sentence, arising from an armed robbery spree involving multiple vehicle thefts at gunpoint using an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a realistic imitation firearm, the defendant's prior youth sentences, the prevalence of car thefts, and the significant trauma inflicted on victims.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and the defendant's age.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The defendant, Jason Lacroix, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, commission of an indictable offence with an imitation firearm, and unlawful confinement.

The court considered his background, including a history of substance abuse, a traumatic brain injury, and a lengthy criminal record, alongside his lesser degree of responsibility compared to a co-accused.

The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years, while the defence proposed four to five years.

The court sentenced the defendant to a global sentence of five years, less pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the parity principle and his subordinate role in the offences.

Jimmy Jainga pleaded guilty to uttering threats, use of an imitation firearm, and assault with a weapon, stemming from a domestic incident where he threatened his common-law partner and her daughters with a replica firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including his prior manslaughter conviction, the domestic context of the offences, and the presence of children.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, a 10-year gap in his criminal record, and strong family support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences.

Jainga was sentenced to 36 months (3 years) for the imitation firearm charge, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Following a judge-alone trial, the defendant was found guilty of multiple serious offences including use of an imitation firearm, robbery, forcible confinement, and several counts of sexual assault with a weapon and with a co-accused.

The offences involved a planned, violent gang assault on a vulnerable victim.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested time served (equivalent to 5.5 years).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, the victim's vulnerability, and the defendant's lack of remorse, which indicated poor rehabilitation prospects.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's mental health and learning difficulties, family support, and credit for restrictive pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, deducting 5 years and 5 months for pre-sentence credit, leaving 4 years and 7 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a non-communication order were also made.

Duplicate counts were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Matthew McLean, was sentenced for robbery, possession of an imitation firearm, and assault causing bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the firearm offence and the violent nature of the robbery, alongside extensive mitigating factors such as the accused's youth (21 at the time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, strong family support, pro-social life, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The court also considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism in the justice system, as the accused is a young Black man.

The defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years' probation, which the court accepted, finding it consistent with sentencing principles and posing little risk to community safety.

The defendant, Emilio Gonzalez-Ramirez, was found guilty of aggravated assault and use of an imitation firearm.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering factors such as the complainant's young age, the unprovoked nature of the assault, the use of an imitation firearm, the defendant's mental health issues (schizophrenia), and the significant collateral immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence with mitigating factors, including the defendant's mental illness and the harshness of pre-trial custody, ultimately imposing a sentence structured to preserve the defendant's right to appeal a potential deportation order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Malachi Brown was found guilty by a jury of assault with a weapon and using an imitation firearm while committing an assault with a weapon.

The court addressed the Kienapple rule, determining it did not prevent multiple convictions for these offences due to Parliament's intent to displace it for s. 85 of the Criminal Code.

Considering aggravating factors (use of imitation firearm, victim's age, breach of trust) and mitigating factors (first offender, youth, family support, anti-Black racism social context), the court sentenced Brown to a total of eighteen months imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

A ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order were also imposed.

The appellant, Nathaniel Tulloch, appealed a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The sentencing judge had accepted a joint submission for a global custodial term, but all parties inadvertently overlooked section 85(4) of the Criminal Code, which mandates that the sentence for the imitation firearm offence be served consecutively.

The sentencing judge acknowledged the error but was functus officio.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, supported by the Crown, and varied the sentence to ensure the section 85(2)(a) offence was served consecutively, while adjusting the other counts to maintain the originally intended global sentence.

Miguel Ngabirano pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The court considered general sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the collateral immigration consequences of a custodial sentence.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or a shorter custodial term.

The court imposed a sentence of three months custody followed by 21 months less a day conditional sentence and three years probation, specifically tailoring the custodial portion to be less than six months to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential removal order to Burundi, an unstable country.

Charles Okito pleaded guilty to kidnapping and robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors (impact on victim, imitation firearm) and mitigating factors (youth, first offence, guilty plea, difficult background, mental health challenges, collateral consequence of deportation).

Applying sentencing principles, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment before credit for presentence custody, resulting in a further 20 months and 15 days to serve.

The judge also made a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order, and waived the victim fine surcharge.

The judge recommended against deportation due to the offender's rehabilitation prospects and lack of support in his home country.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, using an imitation firearm, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant, Zoe Pessoa, and the accused, Alpha McLeod, who claimed the sexual activity was consensual and arranged via an escort website.

The court found Mr. McLeod's testimony to be inconsistent and contradictory, disbelieving his account.

Conversely, the complainant's evidence was found credible and reliable, supported by consistent testimony and corroborating facts.

Mr. McLeod was found guilty on counts of sexual assault, uttering death threats, and forcible confinement.

The appellant, Rejean Perron, appealed the imposition of a ten-year long-term supervision order following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and use of an imitation firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the sentencing judge not explicitly detailing why a ten-year order was imposed over a shorter term, the record and the psychiatrist's report, which indicated a high risk of recidivism and an undiagnosed behavioural pattern, justified the maximum period of supervision.

The court also noted the possibility of future reduction or termination of the order.

The appellant, Jeffrey Dodman, sought leave to appeal his 12-month custodial sentence for robbery and use of an imitation firearm.

The appeal focused on the calculation of "Downes credits" for pre-trial bail conditions, the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, the impact of post-sentencing events (including COVID-19 risks), and the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for imitation firearm use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's calculation of Downes credits was a reasonable exercise of discretion, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the seriousness of the crime, and post-sentencing events did not warrant interference.

The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum or delay the decision pending legislative changes, as the imposed sentence was deemed fit regardless.

The defendant was charged with possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (threatening death or bodily harm) and possession of ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order.

The court found the witness's testimony regarding the alleged threat unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential motives, leading to an acquittal on the first charge.

However, regarding the ammunition charge, the court accepted expert testimony that the modified bullets met the definition of "ammunition" under the Criminal Code, despite not being test-fired, distinguishing the case from R. v. Wilson.

The defendant was found guilty of possession of ammunition while prohibited.

Shadoe G. Moore pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with an imitation handgun and using an imitation handgun during the commission of an indictable offence.

The court considered the interplay between ss. 85 and 343 of the Criminal Code, rejecting the "double-dipping" argument and affirming Parliament's intent for consecutive sentences.

The court also addressed the "step principle" in sentencing, rejecting its strict application for Indigenous offenders, and discussed the application of "Summers" and "Duncan" credit for pre-sentence custody conditions, particularly harsh due to lockdowns and COVID-19.

The judge applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the profound impact of intergenerational trauma and systemic factors on the offender's moral culpability.

A global sentence of three years was imposed, reduced by 338 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years and one month.

Heeralal Ramdeo was convicted after a judge-alone trial for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit assault, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace.

The Crown alleged Ramdeo masterminded the kidnapping of Dharwant Gill to locate Paul, who had stolen drugs from Ramdeo.

Gill's testimony, though inconsistent and from an unsavoury witness (treated as Vetrovec), was corroborated by other evidence.

The court found a conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt and Ramdeo's probable membership.

Ramdeo's defence was rejected as unreasonable.

He was found guilty on most counts but acquitted of uttering threats due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific content of threats.

The appellant, Brian Lariviere, appealed a 12-month imprisonment sentence for aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and fentanyl possession, after receiving credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The appeal sought a reduction in sentence due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and that general pandemic conditions, without unique personal vulnerability, did not justify a sentence reduction.