V. Aujla

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment.

Applying Summers credit and enhanced Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the sentence was reduced to time served.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture of seized items.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following the shooting death of the victim.

The Crown alleged the accused arranged the murder in retaliation for the robbery of a driver working for his illegal cannabis delivery service.

Relying heavily on intercepted communications, the court found the accused's own statements proved he procured and paid others to shoot the victim.

The court rejected defence arguments regarding intervening causes and alternative inferences.

The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder as an arranged murder under section 231(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for first-degree murder and criminal organization charges arising from a large wiretap investigation (Project Siphon).

The total delay was 39 months for the homicide and over 41 months for the criminal organization charges.

After deducting defence delay and a two-month discrete exceptional circumstance for the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found the remaining delay was justified by the particular complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure, numerous targets, and complex privilege issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, broke into a home while intoxicated and briefly touched the buttocks of a 13-year-old victim in her bedroom.

He was convicted of break and enter to commit an indictable offence and sexual interference.

The court found the Kienapple principle did not apply to stay the sexual interference charge, as the offences protect different societal interests.

Weighing the aggravating factor of a home invasion against significant mitigating factors including the offender's pro-social background and rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected the Crown's request for a seven-year sentence and imposed a concurrent 15-month sentence followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and sexual interference after entering a stranger's home in the middle of the night and touching the 13-year-old complainant's buttock in her bedroom.

The court found the complainant and her family to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies in their evidence.

The court rejected the defence's arguments of inadvertent collusion and motive to fabricate.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a former bank employee, was charged with defrauding her employer of over $5,000 after depositing an $18,850 cheque from a closed corporate account and quickly depleting the funds.

The accused claimed she believed the account was open and had sufficient funds.

The court rejected her evidence as unworthy of belief, finding she knew the account was closed and intentionally depleted the funds before the cheque could be returned NSF.

The accused was found guilty.

The young person, while in custody at a youth centre, was charged with three counts of assaulting a peace officer.

The incident occurred when officers attempted to physically contain the young person after he refused to surrender a lighter he had secreted on his person.

The court reviewed testimony from two youth services officers and video surveillance footage.

The court found the officers' testimony credible and corroborated by the video evidence, which showed the young person punching at the officers.

The court rejected the suggestion of self-defence and found the young person guilty of the assaults.

The accused were charged with unlawful act manslaughter following a workplace incident where a co-worker was fatally injured by a high-pressure air hose.

One of the accused brought a motion to admit expert evidence from an occupational health and safety expert regarding the hazards of compressed air and the need for workplace training.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding domestic law was inadmissible, and the factual evidence lacked probative value and was unnecessary, as the objective standard for manslaughter does not require such specialized knowledge.

During a jury trial for unlawful act manslaughter arising from a workplace incident involving a compressed air hose, the accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

They argued there was no evidence from which a jury could infer that a reasonable person would have objectively foreseen the risk of bodily harm.

The court dismissed the application, finding that evidence including video footage, the sound and power of the air hose, and the bypassing of a safety mechanism provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to find objective foreseeability of bodily harm.

During a trial for unlawful act manslaughter arising from a workplace incident involving a compressed air hose, the defence sought to cross-examine the Crown's forensic pathology expert on a statement from a 1942 journal article regarding public perception of the dangers of compressed air.

The Crown objected.

Following a voir dire, the court ruled that the question could not be put to the expert.

The court found that public perception was outside the expert's area of expertise, the 1942 article was of limited reliability for assessing public knowledge in 2015, and the question had no probative value while carrying significant prejudicial effect.

In a manslaughter trial involving three Punjabi Sikh accused, the defence brought a pretrial motion to determine the wording of a challenge for cause question to be put to the jury panel.

The court ruled that a general preamble was sufficient, rejecting a more detailed version proposed by the defence.

The court also held that the question should specifically identify the accused as Punjabi Sikhs, recognizing that prejudice may be triggered by outward manifestations of religious beliefs such as wearing a turban.

Finally, the court exercised its discretion to not provide the question to prospective jurors in advance, preferring spontaneous answers.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion seeking an order for the jury and the court to take a view of the food processing facility where the deceased was fatally injured by a high-pressure air hose during an incident of horseplay.

The Crown sought the view primarily to allow the jury to hear the sound of the air hose.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the facility had undergone significant changes since the incident, the exact conditions could not be recreated, and the jury would have access to high-quality video and audio evidence.

The court concluded that the potential prejudice to the accused outweighed the limited probative value of the view.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found a semi-automatic rifle, ammunition, and a tactical vest.

The accused, who was the sole tenant but in a drug rehab program at the time of the search, denied knowledge of the items.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, relying on his incriminating statements to police and the lack of any rational alternative explanation.

The court found the accused guilty of four counts, concluding the only rational inference was that he had knowledge and control of the items.

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.