Daniel Moore

Sentencing following convictions for seven counts of transferring a firearm and sixteen counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of transferring it under the Criminal Code.

The offender purchased 23 firearms using a valid licence over an approximately 18‑month period, with several later recovered at crime scenes and others unaccounted for.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms trafficking cases given the risk of violent gun crime, while also considering mitigating factors including youth, lack of prior record, educational pursuits, and supportive family background.

After reviewing comparable sentencing authorities and applying the totality principle, the court set a global sentence of eight years.

Enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted at 1.5:1, resulting in a reduced custodial sentence.

The appellant, an alternative medicine practitioner, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against female patients and received a 23-month conditional sentence with strict house arrest.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by not permitting an exception for work or education purposes.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where denunciation and deterrence are paramount, a punitive condition precluding work or education exceptions is appropriate and entitled to appellate deference.

The accused applied to exclude evidence, including a loaded handgun, seized from a hotel room following a warrantless police entry.

The accused argued the initial police entry violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion under s. 24(2).

The court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room because his lawful entitlement to occupy the room had expired before police entered.

In the alternative, the court found that the brief warrantless entry by police was justified as a safety search to secure a firearm and ensure no persons remained in the room.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

An NCR accused detained at a psychiatric hospital challenged the constitutionality of s. 672.56 of the Criminal Code, arguing that it violated s. 7 of the Charter by allowing the hospital’s person in charge to determine whether increased restrictions on liberty should trigger mandatory Review Board oversight.

The applicant argued this created a conflict of interest and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that when s. 672.56 is considered within the broader statutory framework of Part XX.1, including discretionary review powers and the availability of judicial review, the scheme provides a fair process.

The notification requirement imposes a statutory duty rather than discretionary review authority.

Accordingly, the provision does not violate principles of fundamental justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assaults committed in 1981 and 1993, both involving the use of firearms and violence against strangers.

DNA evidence from preserved forensic samples led to identification decades later while the accused was incarcerated in the United States for other offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the age of one complainant, the use of weapons, home invasion, extensive criminal history, and high risk of re‑offending.

After assessing parity with comparable authorities and applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, the court determined appropriate consecutive sentences of 11 and 13 years before reductions.

Applying the totality principle and granting limited credit for cooperation with police, the court reduced the overall sentence to a global term of 20 years, to commence after completion of the accused’s American sentence.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on an “Over 80” charge under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code because the accused had not been served with process for that Information.

The appeal court reviewed transcripts of earlier appearances showing that counsel or agents appeared pursuant to a designation while the replacement Information was before the court.

The court held that appearances by designated counsel or agents were legally equivalent to the accused being present and constituted attornment to the court’s jurisdiction, even if formal process requiring attendance had not been issued.

Any defect in process affects jurisdiction over the person only and does not invalidate a facially valid Information charging an offence.

The trial judge erred in concluding that jurisdiction was lost.