M. Montemurro

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault following a violent home invasion where the victim was handcuffed and beaten with a baton and BB gun.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the offender to five years in the penitentiary, reduced to three years after applying credit for pre-trial custody, strict bail conditions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused pleaded guilty to offences related to a nighttime home invasion where he and an accomplice were masked and armed with a handgun.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record and was in breach of multiple court orders.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the accused to six years in the penitentiary concurrent on several counts, plus 345 days of pre-trial custody credited as time served on another count, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident after striking and killing a 71-year-old pedestrian.

Following the collision, the offender fled, attempted to conceal his involvement by further damaging the vehicle to fake vandalism, and lied to his family and a mechanic.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the calculated deception and lack of genuine remorse, against mitigating factors such as his lack of a prior record and compliance with bail conditions.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day, reduced by pre-sentence and strict bail credits to a net sentence of 447 days, along with a DNA order and a three-year driving prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery and use of an imitation firearm after robbing an escort in her motel room.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victim, the use of an imitation firearm, and the fact that the offender was on statutory release for similar offences.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 3 years and 1 day in the penitentiary, granting enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to frequent institutional lock-downs.

In a certiorari application arising from criminal proceedings, the moving party challenged a trial-level order made under s. 486.3(4) of the Criminal Code and also challenged a disclosure ruling concerning a complainant video statement.

The court held that although a prior order by another judge was not binding in the circumstances, the key procedural defect was the trial judge’s failure to address the request to cross-examine the affiant on the Crown affidavit when the application was renewed.

That denial of cross-examination on affidavit evidence constituted a denial of natural justice reviewable on certiorari.

The challenged s. 486.3(4) order was quashed and remitted to the trial judge for rehearing.

The disclosure branch was dismissed as a matter potentially raising appeal issues rather than certiorari grounds.