Liron Taub

This decision addresses the application of section 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the right to the benefit of the lesser punishment when sentencing a young person for offences committed as a juvenile under the now-repealed Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) versus the current Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found that although the YCJA allows for custodial sentences including adult facilities, the JDA's provisions, which focused on treatment rather than punishment and allowed for committal to industrial schools, provide the lesser punishment.

Given the absence of industrial schools today, the maximum sentence under the JDA is probation.

The court ordered sentencing under the JDA, applying the lesser punishment principle.

Anthony Ha pleaded guilty to assault and distributing intimate images.

The victim, his former intimate partner, suffered physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought five months jail and probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the calculated nature of distributing intimate images for revenge, breach of trust, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, and counselling.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for such serious offences, particularly those involving intimate partner violence and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The defendant, Ryan Bhimlal, was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood within two hours of operating a conveyance.

At trial, he challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) (prompt information of reasons for detention), 10(b) (right to counsel without delay), and 8 (unreasonable search/seizure due to samples not taken "as soon as practicable").

The court found no breach of section 10(a) or 10(b), deeming the delays reasonable given the officer's inexperience and the actions taken.

The court also found that failure to take samples "as soon as practicable" is not a section 8 breach, and even if it were, the samples were taken reasonably promptly.

The court also performed a s. 24(2) analysis, concluding that even if a s. 10(b) breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded.

The defendant was found guilty.