Luc Leclair

The offender, Christopher Goulbourne, pleaded guilty to simple robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and breaking and entering related to a home invasion.

This sentencing decision addresses the fit sentence for these offenses, considering his lengthy criminal record, including a prior armed bank robbery for which he was already serving a seven-year sentence.

The court applied principles of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, protection of the public, proportionality, and totality.

The judge determined a global sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment for the home invasion offenses, to be served in addition to the remaining four years of his previous sentence, resulting in a total of eleven and a half years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant, Christopher Goulbourne, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for serious offences (robbery, use of imitation firearm, breaking and entering) based on alleged Charter breaches under sections 7 and 24(1).

He claimed he was assaulted by court officers and that police failed to investigate the incident.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the force used by correctional officers was reasonable and necessary given his disruptive and aggressive conduct.

The court also found no intentional or malicious failure to investigate, but rather a miscommunication.

Ultimately, the court concluded that no Charter breach occurred, and therefore no remedy, including a stay of proceedings, was warranted.

The accused, Nosakhare Ohenhen, faced a retrial for seventeen offences including assault police, resisting arrest, firearm possession, and drug trafficking.

He challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under ss. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found the police officers' evidence to be neither credible nor reliable, noting numerous inconsistencies, lack of recall, and potential collusion in note-taking.

The court concluded that Ohenhen was arbitrarily detained without articulable cause, subjected to unreasonable searches of his person and vehicle without a warrant, and repeatedly denied his right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court deemed the Charter violations egregious and committed in bad faith, strongly favoring the exclusion of evidence.

Consequently, all evidence was excluded, and Ohenhen was acquitted of all charges.