Krystal Bodil Myge

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop after an accident, and flight from a police officer following a high-speed pursuit where he rammed police vehicles.

The Crown sought a 9-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought an 8-month conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background, his positive steps toward rehabilitation, and the 17 months he spent on strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation and a two-year driving prohibition, finding it consistent with the principles of restraint, denunciation, and deterrence.

The defendant, Isaac Kalejaiye, was found guilty after trial of dangerous operation of a conveyance.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional nature of his dangerous driving (road rage) which caused significant, lasting injuries to multiple victims, and his extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included his mental health issues and proactive steps towards rehabilitation.

The court rejected both the defence's request for an absolute discharge and the Crown's proposed conditional sentence as too lenient, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A period of incarceration and a significant driving prohibition were deemed necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability.

The accused, Attaul Raheem Ahmad, was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon against his mother.

The mother testified for the Crown, describing a violent, prolonged beating.

The accused testified in his own defence, offering inconsistent explanations for his mother's extensive injuries, including speculative falls.

The court found the mother's testimony consistent and corroborated by photographic evidence of her severe bruising, while rejecting the accused's unreliable and changing account.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Jules Meawasige, pleaded guilty to a serious charge, leading to a sentencing hearing.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 40-month sentence, acknowledging the accused's acceptance of responsibility and the saving of court time as significant mitigating factors.

The judgment detailed the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit, including specific consideration for lockdown days and COVID-19 impacts.

Various ancillary orders were imposed, including a 20-year SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-communication order.

A three-year probation period was also imposed, with conditions focused on rehabilitation, particularly addressing alcohol abuse and sexual behaviours.

The Crown brought an application for direction regarding the scope of a preliminary inquiry where an Information contains both offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or more (14+ offences) and offences with a maximum penalty of less than 14 years (<14 offences).

Following amendments to the Criminal Code that came into force on September 19, 2019, defendants can only request preliminary inquiries for 14+ offences.

The court determined that a preliminary inquiry judge has jurisdiction only over the 14+ offences and must remit the <14 offences to the Superior Court, regardless of the outcome of the preliminary inquiry on the 14+ offences.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the calculation of child support and arrears based on $11,000 of imputed income to the respondent father from his DJing business.

The court allowed the father's claimed business expenses, finding them reasonable, and calculated his total income using a Divorcemate gross-up.

The court ordered the father to pay $929 in total child support arrears and set ongoing child support at $498 per month, with the imputed income to be indexed annually to inflation.

The parties separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody with a parallel-parenting plan and equal access.

The court found that both parents were loving and capable, but had communication difficulties and a lack of trust.

The court ordered joint custody with a parallel decision-making structure to minimize conflict while ensuring both parents remained meaningfully involved.

Access for the father was increased but not to an equal time-sharing arrangement due to the lengthy commute between the parents' homes.

The court also imputed $11,000 in annual income to the father for his side business as a DJ and ordered retroactive child support, while reducing his ongoing support by $200 per month due to high access costs.