Kurt Wildman

The offender, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, careless storage of ammunition, and possession of fentanyl and crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's background, including the impact of systemic anti-black racism, his positive rehabilitative steps, and his lengthy period on strict bail.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a motion under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the warrant lacked sufficient grounds to justify the search of his residence and vehicle, and that the affiant misled the issuing justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, including redacted confidential informant information, provided a credibly-based probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the applicant's residence and in his vehicle.

The court concluded that the applicant's section 8 rights were not breached.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and two counts of mischief against his former intimate partner.

The complainant, who suffered from a traumatic brain injury from a prior motor vehicle accident, testified that the accused strangled her on multiple occasions and destroyed her property, including a cell phone, keyboard, and air mattress.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable despite her cognitive challenges, noting significant corroboration from police photographs of the damaged property.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm and offering to traffic in cocaine based on intercepted telephone calls and text messages.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony on coded language to argue the accused made genuine offers.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the jurisdictional averment that the offences occurred in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held the intercepted communications only showed the accused acting as a conduit for information, not making a genuine offer to transfer a firearm or sell cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, specifically challenging an order made under s. 161 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge exercised his discretion judicially and tailored the order to the offender's circumstances.

The Court also corrected administrative errors in the s. 161 and SOIRA orders to reflect the proper durations of ten and twenty years, respectively, as stated in the trial judge's reasons.