Justin Wing-Chung Yuen

The young person pleaded guilty to first-degree murder.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the young person's central role in the planned murder, the profound impact on the victim's family, the crime occurring in the victim's home, and the use of firearms.

Mitigating factors included the young person not being the principal shooter, his guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior youth record, significant rehabilitative efforts in custody (completing high school, programs), strong family support, cognitive weaknesses (head injuries, ADHD, learning disability), and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his background.

The court imposed an eight-year sentence, consisting of five years in custody and three years under community supervision, with credit for pre-sentence custody (30 months one-for-one, and 12 months enhanced credit for harsh adult detention conditions), resulting in six further months of custody followed by three years of community supervision.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant sought a stay of firearms charges under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and co-accused counsel's medical emergency.

The court found the net delay was below the presumptive ceiling and dismissed the application, concluding the delay was not unreasonable.

The applicants, Patrick Agpoon and Shea Flemmings, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, deducting defence-caused delay, and assessing the impact of the global pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

While significant defence delays were attributed to both applicants, the Crown failed to adequately explain a 12-month delay in preferring a direct indictment, particularly given its earlier contemplation of this route and its successful use in a similar case during the pandemic.

The court found that even after reasonable adjustments for defence delay and a limited period for the pandemic, the net delay for both applicants exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling for superior courts.

Consequently, the court found an infringement of their s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

The defendant, Dylan Cummins, was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 320.15 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant did not have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The court also addressed an alleged violation of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel, finding a breach occurred at the police station related to drug trafficking charges (later withdrawn), but determined there was no causal, contextual, or temporal connection between this breach and the evidence for the breath sample charge.

Consequently, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to a finding of guilt for failing to provide a breath sample.

The applicant, Ronald Byfield, sought to exclude cocaine evidence, arguing his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 9 (arbitrary detention) were violated during his arrest and a subsequent roadside strip search.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, thus no section 9 breach.

Regarding the search, the court determined it was a strip search as defined in R. v. Golden, but found it was justified by exigent circumstances (officer safety and evidence preservation) and conducted reasonably, without infringing section 8.

Alternatively, applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court found that even if there were breaches, the evidence would not be excluded due to the good faith of the officers, minimal intrusiveness, reliability of the evidence, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits of a serious drug trafficking charge.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence was not excluded.

This sentencing decision follows a jury conviction of Nicholas Jenkins for three counts of trafficking and three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin.

Tianna Morgan was convicted of three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, and one count of obstructing a peace officer, plus a breach of probation.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the fentanyl convictions for both defendants due to unknown quantities and lack of specific knowledge, entering convictions for heroin instead.

Jenkins received a global sentence of six years and six months, reduced to five years and 295 days after pre-sentence credit.

Morgan received a global sentence of time served (305 days) and three years probation, with a focus on rehabilitation.