J. Hershberg

The offender pled guilty to robbery with a restricted firearm, robbery with an imitation firearm, and possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter due to a 32-hour delay in bringing the offender before a justice, granting a six-month sentence reduction as a remedy.

The court interpreted section 344(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to require a prior conviction for robbery with a firearm to trigger the seven-year mandatory minimum, finding the applicable minimum was five years.

The court also held that a seven-year minimum would violate section 12 of the Charter.

Considering the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody and the Charter breach, the court imposed a global sentence of five years and three months, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The applicant, a young person charged with murder, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the preliminary hearing of his separately charged adult co-accused.

The applicant argued the Crown's predominant purpose was to obtain incriminating evidence against him and force him to reveal his defence.

The court found the Crown established the applicant likely had material evidence to give.

Applying the Branch test, the court concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate the Crown's predominant purpose was improper or that there was a real and substantial risk of prejudice to his fair trial rights, given the availability of derivative use immunity.

The application to quash the subpoena was dismissed.