3 total
A youthful first-time offender is sentenced to 3.5 years in custody for possessing loaded prohibited firearms.
The accused was convicted by jury of two counts of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, two counts of careless storage of ammunition contrary to s. 86(1), and one count of possession of a prohibited device contrary to s. 92.
The accused jumped from a balcony during a police search warrant execution and was found with two loaded prohibited firearms in the laneway below.
The court imposed a global sentence of 3½ years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in six months remaining to be served.
The court balanced the serious nature of firearm offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, first-time offender status, supportive family, rehabilitative potential, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention.
The offender was sentenced to eight months imprisonment for spousal sexual assault and fifteen days for breaching court orders.
The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced S.T. to 8 months imprisonment for sexual assault of his spouse, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 30 days for breaches of court orders.
The court considered aggravating factors including the violation of a position of trust, persistence despite victim resistance, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.
Mitigating factors included S.T.'s lack of prior record, remorse for breaches, employment history, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.
The court rejected a conditional sentence due to concerns about compliance and the seriousness of the offence.
A 10-year SOIRA order, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.
The accused's continued pre-trial detention was justified on secondary grounds pending a better release plan.
This endorsement concerns a detention review hearing held pursuant to section 525 of the Criminal Code.
The court found that the accused's continued pre-trial detention was justified on secondary grounds, but allowed for the matter to be brought back before the court with a further and better plan of release.