B. Pearson

The accused was charged with seven counts relating to the armed robbery of a pharmacy.

Three masked men entered the pharmacy, stole narcotics and cash, and fled in a vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused was the planner and driver of the getaway vehicle, relying on circumstantial evidence including GPS tracking of the stolen narcotics, cell phone records, and video surveillance.

The court found the accused guilty of robbery, possession of narcotics over $5,000, and breach of probation, concluding he was a party to the offence.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the firearms charges, finding the evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession of the firearm abandoned near the getaway vehicle.

The offender, a tax protester, was convicted of eight counts of improperly claiming or obtaining refunds under the Income Tax Act.

He devised a sophisticated scheme using trusts and corporations to evade taxes and fraudulently claim refunds, personally profiting over $100,000 and attempting to secure over $600,000 for a client.

The court sentenced him to a global term of 24 months imprisonment, less 7 months enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and COVID-19 lockdown hardships, leaving 17 months to serve.

The court also imposed mandatory fines totaling $499,919, rejecting a conditional sentence order due to the need for denunciation and deterrence.

In a pre-trial voir dire, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused at his home and at the police station following his arrest for importing opium.

The accused sought to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The court found the statement at the home was a spontaneous utterance made before the police could complete the caution, and the statement at the station was voluntary despite the lack of a secondary caution.

The court also held there was no change in jeopardy that would trigger a right to a second consultation with counsel.

The statements were ruled admissible.

Following a jury conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, the court determined a fit sentence having regard to proportionality under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved intentionally driving toward the victim after a verbal altercation, causing catastrophic and permanent injuries.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount, rejected both a suspended sentence and an intermittent sentence, and found that a custodial disposition was required notwithstanding strong rehabilitative prospects and the absence of a criminal record.

A sentence of six months' imprisonment, two years' probation, a five-year driving prohibition, and the victim fine surcharge was imposed.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder and assault causing bodily harm in relation to the death of his common-law partner's two-year-old son.

The child suffered extensive, repeated blunt force trauma while in the offender's care, culminating in fatal abdominal injuries.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second-degree murder with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the brutal breach of trust against a vulnerable infant.

A concurrent sentence of five years was imposed for the assault causing bodily harm.

Sentencing following jury convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault arising from historical sexual abuse of a child by an adult babysitter in a position of trust.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the abuse involved repeated vaginal intercourse over approximately two years, grooming, intimidation, and egregious breach of trust, while declining to treat the secretly arranged abortion as an aggravating factor because paternity was not proven.

Applying the governing sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, the court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society predominated and that a conditional sentence was wholly unfit.

A six-year penitentiary sentence was imposed on the sexual interference count, the sexual assault count was conditionally stayed, and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, and no-contact orders were made, but a s. 161 prohibition order was refused.

The accused was charged with robbery, having his face masked with intent to commit robbery, and use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of an accomplice and a videotaped confession by the accused.

The accused testified that he was high on marijuana, unaware of the robbery plan, and falsely confessed due to police threats.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the accomplice's evidence corroborated by the confession and physical evidence, and found the accused guilty on all charges.

The accused was arrested for an armed carjacking after police intercepted the stolen vehicle.

During the arrest, an officer grounded the accused, causing a minor cut to his chin, to secure a replica handgun tucked in his waistband.

The accused subsequently gave a videotaped statement to police.

On a confessional voir dire, the defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive police conduct, specifically the use of force during the arrest.

The court found the officer's use of force was reasonable and necessary given the dynamic and high-risk situation of an armed suspect.

The court concluded the accused's will was not overborne, and the statement was voluntary and admissible.