M. Passeri

The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including robbery and reckless discharge of a firearm, after firing a handgun into a ceiling to distract police while co-conspirators robbed a jewelry store.

The accused absconded prior to sentencing.

The court found the accused had absconded within the meaning of s. 475 of the Criminal Code but proceeded with sentencing in absentia as a presentence report provided sufficient information.

The court imposed a total sentence of 77.5 months imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for presentence custody, resulting in 70 months left to serve.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

Four co-accused were tried for their alleged roles in a coordinated jewellery store robbery and a preceding distraction shooting.

The Crown relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including covert video surveillance, intercepted communications, and DNA.

The court acquitted Hadi of all charges due to reasonable doubt regarding his identification from video evidence.

Mitsakis and Bangura were convicted of conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offences related to the distraction shooting, as DNA and circumstantial evidence proved their involvement.

Mohamed was acquitted of robbery but convicted of being an accessory after the fact, dangerous driving, and fleeing from police after he attempted to escape the arrest scene in a vehicle containing evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of careless storage of ammunition and one count of possession of ammunition contrary to a prohibition order.

The accused had a significant criminal record, including prior convictions for firearms offences and breaches of prohibition orders.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a total sentence of three years' imprisonment.

Despite expressing grave reservations about the joint submission given the accused's history, the court accepted it, applying the Anthony-Cook standard.

The court imposed the jointly recommended sentence of three years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, but added a three-year probation order.

Sentencing decision following convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and firearms offences including possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm and attempted possession of a firearm without a licence.

The offender participated in a drug trafficking network connected to a large organized criminal operation and sought to obtain firearms through associates.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the combination of illegal drugs and firearms, persistent commercial trafficking activity, and the offender’s association with an organized drug trafficking network.

Aggravating factors included the offender’s ongoing trafficking, lack of remorse, and efforts to acquire firearms, while mitigating factors included youth, a relatively minor criminal record, and factual admissions at trial.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, together with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on multiple drug and firearm offences arising from a large police investigation into organized drug trafficking.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted private communications interpreted through expert testimony regarding drug and firearms terminology.

The accused admitted some drug possession but asserted that coded language referred to marihuana rather than cocaine and that references to firearms concerned a paintball gun.

The court rejected the accused’s explanations as implausible and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence, including expert interpretations, seizure evidence, and contextual communications.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused trafficked crack cocaine, attempted to obtain an illegal firearm, possessed a firearm, possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessed proceeds of crime, but was not guilty of trafficking in marihuana.