L. Cohen

Sentencing of three offenders for criminal organization and firearms offences, with one offender also sentenced for human trafficking and assault causing bodily harm.

The court imposed a 12-year sentence for the principal offender involved in human trafficking and firearms acquisition for the criminal organization, a 7-year sentence for the second offender recruited to obtain firearms, and a 2.5-year sentence for the third offender who acted as a go-between.

The court applied enhanced pre-sentence custody credits for harsh detention conditions and strict house arrest.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after being shot and admitting to police that a gun found at the scene belonged to him.

The court found that the accused's initial roadside utterances were involuntary and obtained in breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Subsequent statements made in the ambulance and at the hospital were also found to be tainted by the initial breaches, and further s. 10(b) violations occurred at the hospital due to unreasonable delay in facilitating access to counsel, lack of privacy during the consultation, and police questioning before the right was exercised.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with multiple robbery-related offences arising from an armed robbery of a restaurant involving masked perpetrators using imitation firearms and a knife.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance video showing the accused entering an apartment building with other perpetrators shortly after the robbery, possession of stolen liquor, and conduct consistent with concealing stolen property.

The accused testified and called defence witnesses claiming he attended the location only to deliver money to an acquaintance.

Applying the framework from R. v. W. (D.), the court rejected the accused’s testimony as not credible and found the defence evidence unreliable.

Considering the totality of circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only rational inference was that the accused participated in the joint enterprise robbery.