3 total
Loaded handgun at former partner's home required real jail, not a conditional sentence.
Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to prowling at night, obstructing a peace officer, carrying a concealed weapon, and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm after the accused attended uninvited at a former intimate partner's residence in the early morning while carrying a loaded 9mm handgun.
The court treated as aggravating the intimate-partner context, the significant psychological harm to the complainant, the loaded handgun, and the accused's abandonment of the weapon when police approached.
Although the court gave mitigating weight to the guilty plea, youth, lack of record, anti-Black racism and poor remand conditions, and immigration consequences, it held that denunciation and deterrence remained predominant.
Applying Summers credit and the conditional sentence framework, the court concluded that a community-based sentence would not adequately reflect the gravity of bringing a loaded handgun to a former partner's home, and imposed a net custodial sentence with probation and ancillary orders.
The court dismissed the section 11(b) Charter application because the delay was below the ceiling.
The accused, Malachi Alleyne-Smart, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his trial for assault charges.
The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated trial end date was 19 months and 1 day.
The court calculated 29 days of defence delay and deducted 15 days for COVID-19 related "Blitz Court" delay, resulting in a remaining net delay of 17 months and 18 days, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.
The court found the defence failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings by seeking early trial dates, and that the time taken was not "markedly longer" than reasonable for similar matters in the jurisdiction.
The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.
A stay of proceedings was granted for unreasonable delay because the Crown failed to provide evidence quantifying the COVID-19 backlog.
The applicant, S.M., charged with two counts of sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.
The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 19 months and 26 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters established in R. v. Jordan.
The Crown sought to deduct 3 months for COVID-19 backlog, relying on R. v. Korovchenko, but failed to provide an evidentiary record demonstrating a causal link between the pandemic and the delay or mitigation efforts.
The court found no defence delay and, without sufficient evidence from the Crown to quantify COVID-19 related delay, declined to make any deduction.
Consequently, the delay remained above the Jordan ceiling, and a stay of proceedings was ordered.
