Lucas O’Hara

The accused, Rebecca Brown, was sentenced for multiple drug trafficking offences (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine), firearm possession, flight from police, and breaching various court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including her extensive criminal history, the serious nature of the offences involving dangerous narcotics and a firearm, and multiple breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included her guilty pleas, lengthy history of addiction, and serious diagnosed mental health issues (schizophrenia, severe depression).

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less 772 days pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 1,783 days (approx. 4.88 years).

Ancillary orders included lifetime and 10-year firearms prohibitions, a secondary DNA order, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

This decision concerns the sentencing of two co-accused, Jason Nahmabin and James Armstrong, who pleaded guilty to being accessories after the fact to murder.

Andrew Chute was murdered in April 2022.

Nahmabin, a drug dealer, was instrumental in bringing the victim to the scene and actively assisted the killers post-murder by retrieving evidence and instructing the co-accused to remain silent and destroy evidence.

Armstrong, a first-time offender with addiction issues, drove the killers from the scene and initially lied to police before cooperating.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and extensively considered Gladue factors for Nahmabin.

Armstrong received a 22-month conditional sentence with house arrest and probation, while Nahmabin received four years of incarceration.

The accused, a police officer, arrested a woman who was severely intoxicated by methamphetamine.

While she was in his custody, her condition deteriorated significantly, but he failed to seek medical assistance.

He subsequently transferred her to the custody of other officers and deliberately provided them with false and incomplete information about her medical condition, delaying medical intervention.

The detainee later died of methamphetamine toxicity.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death, holding that his actions constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police officer.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission confirming his conviction for discreditable conduct and a nine-month demotion.

The applicant argued his guilty plea was invalid due to a panic attack and that his hearing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file medical evidence at the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the guilty plea was voluntary and that counsel's tactical decision not to file the medical report in light of a joint submission on penalty did not constitute ineffective assistance.

The court also refused to admit supplemental affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The applicant, a police officer, sought an anonymity order and a publication ban for an upcoming mandatory inquest into a death following his use of force, citing alleged threats to his safety on social media.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the paramountcy of the "open court" principle and the mandatory nature of section 32 of the Coroner's Act, which stipulates that inquests shall be open to the public with only two specific exceptions not applicable to this case.

The court found no evidence of specific threats constituting a real and substantial risk to justify overriding the statutory requirement for a public inquest.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct, which were based on a guilty plea and a joint submission.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and resulted from the ineffective assistance of his former counsel, who allegedly failed to properly advance a defence based on his mental health (panic attacks).

The Commission admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was fit to instruct counsel, the plea was voluntary, and he failed to establish that his former counsel's representation was incompetent or resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The penalty of a nine-month demotion was confirmed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to undue delay.

The delay included a period following a mistrial caused by a misstep by the trial judge.

The application judge characterized this period as institutional delay, noting the unusual circumstances and the failure of the Crown or the court to canvas earlier trial dates.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusions regarding the characterization of the delay or the finding of prejudice, and dismissed the appeal.