Ugo Cara

The accused were convicted of discharging a firearm into a residential home and mischief under $5000.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years imprisonment on each accused, with credit for presentence custody.

The offence involved firing multiple bullets into a home in the early morning hours, with one bullet narrowly missing a sleeping child.

The court found the shooting was planned and deliberate, targeting the home of a family member of a drug dealer.

Weapons prohibition orders for 10 years and DNA orders were imposed.

The accused were charged with discharging a firearm and mischief under $500 for firing a rifle into a residential home, narrowly missing an occupant.

The Crown alleged that Mohammed was the shooter and Rodney was the driver.

The Crown's case relied on direct and circumstantial identification evidence, which standing alone was insufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof.

The Crown also called a jailhouse informant to buttress the identification evidence.

The court found that while the informant was an unsavoury character with a lengthy criminal record, certain elements of his testimony were corroborated by evidence not available to the public, thereby enhancing his reliability.

The court concluded that the combination of identification evidence and the informant's testimony satisfied the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing of a youthful offender (age 20) who pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a loaded prohibited firearm, wearing a disguise, possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking in cocaine.

The offender participated in a planned armed robbery of a cash business and was engaged in a commercial drug enterprise.

The court imposed a total sentence of 1,053 days (approximately 2 years and 9 months) remaining to be served, after crediting 694 days of pre-trial custody at an enhanced rate of 1.5:1.

The court considered the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for armed robbery, the serious nature of the offences, the offender's youth, guilty plea, and the particularly harsh conditions of pre-trial detention including triple bunking and extensive lockdowns.

A youth was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of possession of a dangerous weapon arising from stabbings that occurred outside a banquet hall during a party.

The Crown relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence, including an in-dock identification by one victim.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification evidence, citing cross-racial identification, brief observation time, and improper police identification procedures.

The court found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.