L. Rados

A.R. was convicted by a jury of four counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner (R.V.), and one count of assault (choking) against his young son (K.R.).

The Crown sought a global 22-month sentence, two years probation, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence and opposed probation and SOIRA.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, two years probation, and a DNA order, but declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding a low risk of re-offending despite the serious nature of the domestic violence.

The accused, Japdeep Randhawa, brought an application under sections 123 and 119(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) seeking access to the complainant M.S.S.'s youth records.

The court ruled that access was governed by section 123(1) of the YCJA.

The application was granted, as the court found that Randhawa had a valid and substantial interest in the records to make full answer and defence, particularly given the serious charges involving a handgun and M.S.S.'s prior youth convictions related to an imitation firearm and threats.

The court balanced M.S.S.'s privacy interests against Randhawa's constitutional right to full answer and defence, concluding that the latter prevailed.

Specific redactions were ordered for personal information and references to other non-witness young persons.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused Barker conceded committal on most counts except simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused Duncan challenged committal on all counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused on trafficking charges related to cocaine transactions with an undercover officer on December 19, 2018, and on possession for purpose of trafficking charges related to drugs found in a rental vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Duncan on possession charges related to prescription pills found in his bedroom.

However, the court discharged Duncan on all firearms offences, finding insufficient evidence of his possession of a firearm found in the basement.

The court committed Barker on all firearms offences based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the shoebox where the firearm was found.

This criminal trial involved three accused charged with various firearm-related offences following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance, expert evidence on "characteristics of an armed person," and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis.

The court acquitted two accused, Sentoree Kamara and Shaquille Woodcock, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly noting the limitations of the "characteristics of an armed person" evidence and potential GSR contamination.

However, the court found Shierine Shkais guilty of possession of a firearm, concluding that her questions about "minimums" while detained, combined with the firearm being found in her purse, indicated the requisite knowledge.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing 11.95 kilograms of heroin into Canada.

He acted as a courier, concealing the drugs in his suitcases.

The Crown sought a 20-year sentence, while the defence argued for 12 years, emphasizing the low purity of the heroin and the offender's status as a first-time federal offender.

The court applied the Sidhu range for heroin importation, rejecting the argument that low purity alone justified a sentence at the bottom of the range.

The offender was sentenced to 14.5 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender was sentenced after conviction for importing cocaine into Canada through Pearson International Airport.

The evidence established that two liquor bottles in the offender’s luggage contained approximately 830 grams of pure cocaine.

The court applied established appellate guidance for courier importation offences, which sets a typical sentencing range of three to five years’ imprisonment for first offenders importing approximately one kilogram of cocaine absent exceptional circumstances.

Although mitigating factors included youth, lack of prior criminal record, positive pre‑sentence report, and several years of compliant release on bail during which the offender became a parent and maintained employment, the court held that denunciation and general deterrence remained paramount.

A custodial sentence was required given the quantity, value, and concealed transport of the drug.

The accused was charged with obstructing a peace officer by providing false identification, failing to comply with recognizance conditions, failing to attend court, possession of cannabis, and having liquor in an open container.

The central issue was whether the vehicle stop was lawful and whether Charter rights were violated.

The court found that the vehicle was stopped solely because it was a rental vehicle, with no traffic violation or other lawful basis for the stop.

The court determined that the accused, as a passenger, was subject to an unlawful detention and seizure without reasonable cause.

The court excluded all evidence and utterances pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to serious Charter breaches, and acquitted the accused on all charges.