K. Leszczynski

The accused, a member of the Walpole Island First Nation and former Canadian Armed Forces member, was convicted of gun trafficking in 2015 and received a 10-year firearms prohibition.

He subsequently pled guilty to transporting a firearm in a careless manner while hunting.

He applied for a Section 113 exemption to permit hunting for sustenance purposes.

The court granted the exemption, finding that sustenance hunting for Indigenous persons must be interpreted broadly to recognize cultural and traditional significance, and that the accused had demonstrated a genuine need to hunt as part of his cultural identity and role as a family provider.

The court imposed conditions on the exemption and sentenced the accused to a suspended sentence with probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on February 1st, wherein she entered a bank wearing a disguise, presented a note demanding money, threatened to shoot, and obtained cash before being arrested hours later.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of two and a half years imprisonment less time served (120 days), finding the submission within the appropriate range of two to three years.

The court considered mitigating factors including early guilty plea, cooperation with police, and recognition of victim impact, balanced against aggravating factors including the threat of violence and prior record for violence.

A concurrent 30-day sentence was imposed for breach of probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition was ordered under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made as the offence is a primary DNA offence.

The accused, jointly charged with unlawful confinement and aggravated assault, brought applications to sever counts on the indictment.

One accused was additionally charged with attempted murder and several counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused argued that trying the drug charges together with the violent offences would cause severe prejudice and propensity reasoning.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the drug charges provided the context and motive for the violent offences, as the victim was a competing drug dealer.

The court held that the interests of justice favoured a single trial, and any potential prejudice could be addressed through proper jury instructions.