Kushagr Dutt Sharma

The 19-year-old accused was sentenced for a pharmacy robbery, masking, possession of a stolen vehicle, carjacking, and dangerous driving following a police pursuit.

The court found the carjacking and dangerous driving were motivated by a desire to escape apprehension for the pharmacy robbery, warranting consecutive sentences.

After considering the accused's youth, guilty pleas, and particularly harsh presentence custody conditions during the pandemic, the court imposed a total sentence of four years, reduced to five months and 24 days after applying enhanced credit for presentence custody.

At the start of a robbery trial, the Crown brought a Seaboyer application to adduce evidence regarding the complainant's occupation as a sex worker and the sexual service performed prior to the alleged robbery.

The court held that the statutory regime under s. 276 of the Criminal Code did not apply because robbery is not an enumerated offence and the circumstances did not implicate a listed sexual offence.

The court further held that the common law principles from Seaboyer did not require an application in this context, as the ordinary rules of relevance, materiality, and admissibility would sufficiently protect the complainant's privacy and the accused's fair trial rights.

The Crown's application was dismissed as unnecessary.

The defendant was charged with four Criminal Code offences arising from a motor vehicle incident on March 24, 2018, in Oakville: failing to stop for police while being pursued, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (two counts), and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown proceeded summarily, and the defendant was also arraigned on two Highway Traffic Act charges.

The central issue at trial was identification—whether the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved in all the offences.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence including officer observations, civilian witness testimony, fingerprint evidence, and a spontaneous utterance made by the defendant upon apprehension.

The defence challenged the identification evidence, emphasizing the absence of certain items (sunglasses and a black bag) found at the scene.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts based on the totality of the evidence.

The offenders were found guilty of uttering a forged document, obstructing justice, and attempted fraud over $5,000 after presenting a forged civil judgment bearing a judge's signature.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences for both.

The court sentenced the first offender, a paralegal with a related record, to three years in custody.

The second offender, a first-time offender with minimal risk of re-offending, received a conditional sentence of two years less a day.