Weapons prohibition

The offender pleaded guilty to discharging a restricted firearm with intent to wound and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred during a public altercation outside a shopping mall where the offender fired a handgun at another individual, though no one was struck.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factor of a public shooting near a school against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a total sentence of 6.5 years, reduced by 40.5 months for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was found guilty of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The accused, a repeat offender with a prior firearms conviction, was carrying a loaded handgun in a backpack.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of carrying a loaded firearm in public and the accused's prior record against mitigating factors, including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault with a weapon and criminal harassment, as well as his sentence of a suspended sentence and two years' probation.

The charges arose from a prolonged neighbour dispute culminating in the appellant throwing apples at the complainant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and application of the W.(D.) test were reasonable.

The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as a conditional discharge was not in the appellant's best interest given his lack of remorse.

At the Crown's request, the court varied the sentence to include a mandatory 10-year weapons prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, flight from police, and possession of a prohibited firearm while prohibited.

He fled from police in a vehicle and on foot, discarding a loaded handgun with a removed serial number.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the offender to four years in custody, leaving 22 months and 15 days to serve after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The appellant pled guilty to attempted break and enter and was sentenced to a short custodial term, probation, and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing it prevented him from hunting for food.

The Crown conceded the appeal, agreeing that the offence involved intoxicated confusion with no intent to commit theft and no weapons or violence, making the prohibition discretionary rather than mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the weapons prohibition order on consent.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he slashed the victim's hand with a machete.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought eighteen months.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day in custody, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the use of weapons.

The offender, an aboriginal man with a lengthy criminal record, was convicted of aggravated assault, weapons offences, and breach of recognizance after stabbing a store owner during a dispute over a cell phone data plan.

The court considered Gladue factors, including the offender's history of abuse, bullying, and substance abuse, alongside the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 33 months' imprisonment (credited as time served plus 6 additional months) followed by three years of probation.

The accused was found guilty of 10 counts related to discharging a firearm at a crowded shopping mall on Boxing Day, striking the victim in the foot.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme recklessness of the act, but acknowledged the lack of serious injury and the accused's relatively young age.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, consisting of 7 years for the shooting and 1 year consecutive for possessing a firearm while prohibited, less 2.5 years credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening death, criminal harassment, and mischief, as well as his suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant, after receiving a noise complaint, banged on neighbors' doors and threatened to kill them.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, specifically an iPhone recording that did not capture threats.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error, concluding the trial judge's findings were reasonable.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, though a conditional stay was entered for the criminal harassment charges under the Kienapple principle.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with a modification to the weapons prohibition from s. 109 to s. 110 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant pled guilty to possession of stolen property, attempted break and enter, and break and enter, receiving a 42-month sentence and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing there was no violence used, threatened, or attempted.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's actions, which he admitted scared the victims, constituted an implied threat of violence.

The appeal was dismissed, but the prohibition was varied to 10 years at the Crown's request.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision upholding a discretionary firearms prohibition order under s. 110 of the Criminal Code and a weapons prohibition in his probation order, following a conditional discharge for a minor assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and deleted the prohibition orders, noting the assault was minor, isolated, and did not involve a weapon.

The court also considered the appellant's lack of a criminal record, his safe use of firearms for competitive shooting, and his completion of an anger management course.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual exploitation against his daughter.

The offences occurred when the victim was a teenager and involved inappropriate touching and measuring.

The court considered the accused's low risk of reoffending, lack of criminal record, and the historical nature of the offences, balanced against the significant breach of trust and psychological harm to the victim.

The court imposed a global conditional sentence of two years less a day, along with SOIRA registration, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition.

Sentencing following conviction for attempted robbery committed in the course of a planned home invasion targeting a marijuana seller.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were the paramount objectives, but also considered the offender's youth, limited record, stable employment, family support, and rehabilitative progress.

Although the offender had spent approximately four years and eight months on restrictive bail terms, the court declined to grant equivalent credit because sentencing had been repeatedly adjourned by the defence and no effort had been made to vary the recognizance conditions.

A sentence of 20 months' incarceration, followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed, together with ancillary weapons and DNA orders.

Sentencing decision for a first offender who pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police observed him discard the handgun following a crash arising from street racing.

The court treated the public possession and abandonment of a loaded handgun near a roadway and sidewalk as a serious aggravating circumstance engaging denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and public protection.

While the offender's guilty plea, youth, lack of record, employment history, and community support were mitigating factors, the offence was placed near the true-crime end of the spectrum described in the firearm sentencing jurisprudence.

A penitentiary term of three years was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive house arrest, together with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Following jury convictions for producing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of precursor chemicals, and arson by negligence, the court sentenced the offender for operating a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in a rented residential house over approximately 18 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and both general and specific deterrence, relying on the pernicious nature of methamphetamine, the quantity involved, the prolonged production operation, the use of a third party's property, and the substantial danger posed to a residential neighbourhood.

After concurrent count-specific sentences and credits for bail restrictions and pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The court also granted a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, forfeiture of seized property, and restitution to the landlord for repair costs and lost rent.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter by reason of failing to provide the necessaries of life, the court sentenced both parents for the death of their young child.

The sentencing judge found the respondents equally culpable because they ignored medical advice and obvious warning signs over an extended period, resulting in chronic malnutrition that materially contributed to death alongside an asthma attack.

Applying the sentencing fact-finding framework for jury verdict cases, the court distinguished more egregious child-death authorities involving deliberate abandonment or overt deprivation, but held that denunciation and deterrence had to predominate under the Criminal Code because the offence was committed against a vulnerable child.

A fit sentence was 30 months for each offender, subject to presentence and bail credit, with probation imposed on one respondent and ancillary DNA and weapons prohibition orders made.

The appellant appealed a net sentence of two years and seven months imposed following a guilty plea to possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in drawing unwarranted inferences, imposing an excessive sentence, and failing to give adequate credit for harsh bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fell within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record, breach of a weapons prohibition, and the nature of the firearm (a sawed-off shotgun stored with ammunition).

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and related offences, and by a judge of breaching weapons prohibition and probation orders.

The offender fled from police and threw the loaded handgun into a residential backyard.

The court considered the offender's prior firearms conviction, his pending deportation to Jamaica, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced pre-sentence credit at a ratio of 1.3:1, resulting in 74 months remaining to be served.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for firearms offences, breaches of weapons prohibitions, and assault on police.

He argued the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact and misapprehended evidence in rejecting his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had overwhelming grounds to reject the appellant's evidence and that any misapprehension of evidence related to peripheral matters.

The sentence was also upheld as fit given the aggravating factors and the need for consecutive sentences.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He provided satisfactory proof that he is a full status Métis.

The Court of Appeal varied his probation order by deleting the condition requiring him to abstain from owning, possessing, or carrying weapons as defined in the Criminal Code.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.