Megan Chant

This is a sentencing decision for an offender convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm.

The court considered the "toxic combination" of drugs and guns as an aggravating factor, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, expression of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and exemplary performance on strict bail.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a global conditional sentence order of two years less one day, followed by 12 months of probation, with strict conditions including home confinement and a firearms prohibition.

This decision addresses an application by the defendant for the appointment of a case management judge in a sexual assault proceeding.

The defendant sought the appointment after a judicial pre-trial judge directed that Charter motions, specifically a stay of proceedings related to alleged bail delay, be heard after the trial evidence on the merits.

The defence argued that the pre-trial judge lacked jurisdiction to set such a schedule over their objection and that a case management judge held exclusive authority for scheduling.

The court denied the application, affirming the judicial pre-trial judge's jurisdiction to set trial and motion schedules for efficiency, noting that decisions on stays of proceedings are typically deferred until trial evidence is complete to assess prejudice.

The court also clarified that the powers of a case management judge are not exclusive for scheduling and that the trial judge retains ultimate discretion to modify the schedule.

The accused, Paljinder Bhatti, faced a charge of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude evidence (breath samples and observations) or stay the charge.

The court dismissed the section 10(b) application, finding that the police adequately informed the accused of her right to counsel and provided a reasonable opportunity to exercise it, including the choice of duty counsel.

The court also dismissed the section 8 application regarding cell video surveillance, concluding that police took reasonable steps to protect the accused's privacy.

However, the Crown conceded a section 8 breach regarding the roadside Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, as the device was not readily available at the time of the demand, consistent with R. v. Breault.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, citing the low seriousness of the police conduct, minimal impact on the accused, and strong societal interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits.

Consequently, all Charter applications were dismissed, and the breath samples and observations were admitted into evidence for the trial.