M. Hayworth

The offender was convicted of human trafficking, aggravated assault, procuring, and related offences after forcing a sex trade worker to meet a daily quota and severely assaulting her when she complained.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the offender challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum under s. 279.01(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and sought a conditional sentence.

The court found it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue, as the appropriate sentence was five and a half years imprisonment, considering the gravity of the offences, the offender's lack of a related record, and the impact of incarceration on his children.

The court also ordered a $15,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture and $15,000 in restitution.

The offender was convicted of multiple offences arising from two incidents targeting the same victim: discharging a firearm at her and intentionally ramming her vehicle during a high-speed chase while brandishing an imitation firearm.

The court considered the offender's background, including the impact of systemic racism, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought a 22-year sentence and delayed parole eligibility, while the defence proposed 10 years.

The court imposed a net global sentence of 17 years and 1 month, which was reduced to 10 years, 3 months, and 21 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody, and declined to order delayed parole eligibility.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing the victim multiple times during a physical altercation over drugs.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the use of a knife and the drug context, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 9 months before credit, reducing it by 3 months for the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and granted enhanced credit for time spent in lockdown.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the recent Criminal Code amendments that abolished peremptory challenges during jury selection.

The applicant relied on a recent decision by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction that found the amendments unconstitutional.

The court held that it was not bound by the prior decision and found it to be plainly wrong.

The court concluded that the elimination of peremptory challenges does not violate the right to a fair trial, an impartial jury, or the principles of fundamental justice, as other safeguards such as challenge for cause and the enhanced stand-aside power remain in place.

The application was dismissed and the legislation was upheld as constitutional.