Kimberly Hyslop

The accused, charged with attempted murder, brought a motion to exclude a statement made to police.

Due to a technical error, the audio of the video-recorded interview was mostly unrecorded, and the interviewing officer's notes were sparse.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the recording failure did not breach the accused's Charter rights.

However, the court excluded the audio component because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, while allowing the silent video and the officer's testimony regarding the gist of the interview.

Sentencing decision for robbery and multiple breaches of recognizance arising from a late-night convenience store robbery in which the offender threatened to shoot the clerk with a purported firearm.

The offender pleaded guilty and had served approximately 16 months of pre‑trial custody, credited as two years.

The court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record alongside Gladue factors, including a traumatic upbringing, substance abuse, and systemic issues affecting Indigenous offenders.

Applying the principles from Gladue, Wells, and Ipeelee, the court found the punitive objectives of sentencing had been satisfied by pre‑trial detention.

A suspended sentence with three years’ probation was imposed, with rehabilitative and community‑based conditions.

The two defendants, aged 18 at the time, were convicted of robbing a 15-year-old student of his cell phone at their high school.

The Crown sought 2 to 4 months in jail followed by 18 months probation, while the defence sought probation.

The court considered the defendants' youth, first-time offender status, and post-offence conduct.

Emphasizing specific deterrence and rehabilitation, the court sentenced both defendants to three years of probation with strict conditions, including restitution of $350 each, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.