M. DelGobbo

The defendant, Robert Crozier, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after an unsuccessful Charter motion to exclude evidence.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence advocated for a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less a day, citing the *Sharma* decision and the defendant's personal circumstances, including health issues.

The court found that the case was not exceptional enough to warrant a CSO, distinguishing it from *R. v. Mori*, and sentenced the defendant to three years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at his residence, alleging a violation of his Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The search warrant was based on information from a confidential human source (CHS) regarding cocaine trafficking, corroborated by police surveillance.

The defendant sought to cross-examine the affiant regarding the lottery winnings that explained his lifestyle.

The court found that the search warrant was facially valid based on the totality of circumstances, including the CHS information and extensive police surveillance observations consistent with drug trafficking activity.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault arising from a first date with a 16-year-old complainant.

The Crown alleged multiple acts of unwanted sexual touching including fondling of breasts and genitals, and forced oral sex.

The accused admitted to the fondling but denied forcing the complainant to perform fellatio, claiming it was consensual.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault for the fondling of the complainant's breasts and inner thigh and crotch area, but acquitted him of the allegation of forced fellatio, finding a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the oral sex was non-consensual.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He was arrested on September 28, 2011, with 36.5 grams of cocaine and admitted to possessing an additional 59 grams at his residence.

While awaiting resolution of those charges, he was found with 288.5 grams of cocaine on February 16, 2012.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 48 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, firearms prohibition, and forfeiture order.

The court balanced the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and participation in counselling against the serious nature of the offences and the aggravating factor of reoffending while awaiting trial.

Four accused were convicted of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a residential property on August 22, 2010, knowing or being reckless as to whether the property was inhabited.

The victim's residence was firebombed with Molotov cocktails in what was characterized as a crime for hire based on false allegations that the victim was a pedophile.

The offenders caused approximately $10,000 in damage.

One accused also faced charges of disguising his face with intent to commit an indictable offence and breaching probation.

Another accused faced an additional charge of attempting to obstruct justice.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from two to four and one-half years, with the lead offender receiving the longest sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of arson, particularly when targeting an occupied residence, and applied principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to attempting to aid and abet a foreign national to misrepresent material facts under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing her with a fraudulently used Canadian passport to attempt entry into Canada.

The defendants were detected at the border when the female passenger did not match the photograph in the passport presented.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 on each defendant, rejecting the Crown's request for six months incarceration.

The court found the defendants fell into the less serious category of offenders, as their crime was motivated by humanitarian concerns rather than financial gain, and was ultimately easily detected.