Lon Rose

The accused, Fahmi Osman, applied for judicial interim release following charges related to a series of violent drugstore robberies and dangerous driving incidents.

The Crown opposed his release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's history of non-compliance with release orders, and the perceived inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

Despite the accused's health concerns and the increased risk of COVID-19 in detention, the court found that his continued detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was denied.

A youth was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a beach party where the complainant, who was 14 years old, consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and became extremely intoxicated.

The accused admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but claimed she had consented.

The court found that the complainant was incapacitated by alcohol and lacked the minimal cognitive capacity to consent to sexual activity.

The court further found that the accused knew or was reckless or willfully blind to the complainant's incapacity and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused struck a pedestrian with his vehicle in a strip mall parking lot following a verbal altercation and drove away without stopping.

He was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to stop and breach of recognizance, but acquitted him of the assault and dangerous driving charges, finding reasonable doubt as to whether the collision was intentional or if the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault arising from a stabbing incident on January 27, 2012, where he stabbed his domestic partner three times and a bystander once.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender (indeterminate) designation.

The court found a clear pattern of repetitive violent behaviour spanning the offender's youth and adult criminal records.

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender (determinate) rather than indeterminate, imposing a global sentence of seven years custody with a credit of 1,657 days for pre-sentence custody and an additional 90-day credit for harsh conditions of confinement, resulting in 810 days further custody.

A Long-Term Supervision Order for 10 years was imposed.

The court applied Gladue/Ipeelee principles throughout, recognizing the offender's traumatic background rooted in intergenerational residential school trauma, childhood abuse and neglect, and substance abuse issues.

A young person pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a recognizance, all committed on November 1, 2012, five days before turning 18.

The offender, armed with a knife, attacked two victims in retaliation for a perceived slight to his cousin.

One victim suffered serious injuries including a punctured and collapsed lung and a severed tendon.

The attack occurred the same day the offender was offered extra-judicial sanctions for earlier knife-related charges.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody and supervision (two months secure custody, six months open custody, four months supervision) followed by 12 months probation, with conditions including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The defendants were charged with unlawful production of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a grow operation in their residence.

Police attended the residence in response to a 911 call regarding a shooting in which one defendant was shot in the abdomen.

While conducting what was characterized as a cursory search for additional victims and evidence related to the shooting, officers descended into the basement without a warrant and discovered a marijuana grow operation.

The defence brought a Charter application under section 8 seeking exclusion of the drug evidence on the basis of an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the police had no legal basis to search the basement, that the search was not reasonably incidental to the shooting investigation, and that the conduct constituted a serious breach of Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the defendants were acquitted on both charges.