Nancy Moiah Young

This trial concerned charges of unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine against two defendants.

The court applied principles of constructive possession and circumstantial evidence.

Ivor Shawn Young was found guilty of all charges, as the court concluded that the black backpack containing the gun and cocaine was between his legs, readily accessible, and the presence of a large amount of cash on him supported the inference of drug trafficking.

Justin Dyer was found not guilty of all charges, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about the cocaine or the gun in the black backpack, despite his possession of cannabis in a separate backpack.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and impaired operation causing bodily harm after driving the wrong way on a major highway while highly intoxicated.

The head-on collision resulted in the death of one driver and catastrophic, permanent injuries to another.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the offender's excessive speed, high blood alcohol concentration, and the extreme danger posed to multiple motorists.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years in custody and a 14-year driving prohibition.

The defendants applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence, including a loaded handgun and drugs, found during a warrantless search of their vehicle following a traffic stop.

They alleged violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including claims of racial profiling.

The court dismissed the s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(a) claims, finding the stop was lawful and the search was authorized under the Cannabis Control Act.

The court found moderate breaches of s. 10(b) regarding the implementation of the right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2), as the breaches were not causally connected to the discovery of the evidence and exclusion would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was tried on multiple charges including assault causing bodily harm and weapons offences following a violent altercation.

The accused claimed he was acting in self-defence after being attacked by two men.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused initiated the confrontation out of jealousy, armed himself with a metal pipe and a rock, and used excessive force for an offensive purpose.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against three victims, as well as weapons and breach of probation offences.

The accused, Louise Reid and Melissa Stamper, pleaded guilty to perjury, with Reid also pleading guilty to fraud over $5,000.

The charges arose from a 2005 motor vehicle collision where Reid falsely claimed to be the driver to protect her unlicensed son, subsequently defrauding an insurance company of over $36,000.

Stamper, Reid's daughter, later committed perjury by supporting her mother's false claim in a civil suit.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for offences that undermine the administration of justice.

Considering the unconstitutionality of the statutory preclusion for conditional sentences (as per R. v. Sharma), the court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence for Stamper, citing her lesser culpability, youth at the time of the initial events, and current pregnancy.

Reid received a 9-month custodial sentence (4 months for fraud, 5 months consecutive for perjury), with a reduction to reflect the harsh conditions of incarceration during the pandemic.

The defendant was convicted of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code for sexually abusing his young stepdaughter over a three-year period beginning when she was 10 years old.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

The court considered whether this joint recommendation constituted a "joint submission" entitled to deference under R. v. Anthony-Cook, and whether a delayed parole eligibility order under section 743.6 should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Friesen emphasizing deterrence and denunciation in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found the joint recommendation was not a true joint submission because the defendant maintained a not guilty plea and attempted to advance a fraudulent mental health defence.

The court imposed 4 years and 8 months imprisonment (5 years less 4 months pre-sentence custody credit) with delayed parole eligibility until half the sentence was served, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to five firearm and ammunition manufacturing offences: possession of loaded restricted firearms (Glock 17 and Glock 22), possession of a loaded semi-automatic rifle (AR-15), manufacture of ammunition, and manufacture of prohibited/restricted firearms.

The accused manufactured three restricted firearms in his basement using commercially available POLYMER80 kits and carried one loaded firearm in his vehicle, which he displayed during a dispute with another person.

The court imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The court rejected the defence argument that a recent decision substantially changed the sentencing landscape, finding the accused's conduct fell within the "true crime" end of the spectrum of firearm offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts representing eleven offences involving the surreptitious recording of a minor, child luring, making sexually explicit material available to minors, and possession of child pornography with respect to ten victims aged eleven to sixteen years old over a nine-month period.

The court imposed a sentence of four and a half years in the penitentiary with consecutive sentences on each count, a lifetime SOIRA order, a DNA order, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a nine-year section 161 order with tailored conditions.

The court rejected the defence argument that the offender's mild to moderate cognitive and intellectual disabilities should significantly mitigate his moral culpability, finding that the offences demonstrated sophistication, planning, and deliberation rather than impulsivity or immaturity.

Sahilan Surendran was sentenced for manslaughter after pleading guilty to the shooting death of Kyle Baker.

The incident occurred during a drug deal where Baker accosted and assaulted Surendran, who then fired multiple shots, including fatal ones after Baker had released him.

The court considered aggravating factors such as Surendran's extensive criminal record, use of a firearm while subject to prohibition orders, and lack of assistance to the victim.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, expression of remorse, unstable upbringing, a childhood head injury, and acting under provocation.

The court also noted the limited weight given to a forensic psychiatrist's report due to lack of confirmatory information.

The sentence emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the prevalence of unlawful handguns in the community.

The accused was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges involving child sexual abuse material.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence with credit for 12 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in approximately 17.5 months remaining to be served.

The sentence was followed by three years of probation with conditions including counselling and participation in rehabilitative programs.

A section 161 order was imposed for 10 years, a lifetime SOIRA order was made, and a forfeiture order was issued for seized materials.

The court emphasized the denunciatory nature of the sentence while considering the accused's Gladue report factors, including Indigenous heritage and potential FASD diagnosis.

The proceedings were adjourned to February 7, 2020, to allow the accused to reaffirm his plea comprehension while sober, after he disclosed consuming marijuana before court.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while her blood-alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused advanced multiple Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of the police investigation, including violations of ss.8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found a technical breach of ss.8/9 based on a three-minute unexplained delay in administering the approved screening device demand, but rejected all other Charter arguments.

The court concluded that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the breath sample evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm found in a shared kitchen cabinet during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought 18 months.

The court weighed the offender's minor record, guilty plea, and difficult upbringing against the aggravating factors of the firearm being loaded, carelessly stored, and the presence of drug paraphernalia and motorcycle club affiliations in the residence.

The court imposed a 30-month sentence, granting standard 1.5-to-1 credit for pre-trial custody and an additional 45 days of enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions, leaving 14.5 months to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with dangerous driving.

The Crown withdrew the "over 80" charge during trial.

The defendant admitted to being the driver at the scene but later claimed his friend, the vehicle owner, was actually driving.

The court found the defendant guilty of both impaired driving and dangerous driving based on eyewitness testimony, the defendant's own admission to police, and the implausibility of the defence evidence.

The court rejected the defence narrative that the defendant was lying in the back seat and that the vehicle owner was the actual driver.

The defendant was charged with "Over 80" (operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood) following a police investigation.

The matter proceeded as a blended Charter application and trial.

The defendant sought exclusion of evidence based on alleged breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant raised multiple Charter arguments concerning the lawfulness of the approved screening device demand, the timing of the demand, the location of the test, and the provision of rights to counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter arguments and found the defendant guilty of the charge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

She operated her motor vehicle at high speed while intoxicated, executed a reckless manoeuvre to "show off," lost control, and collided with a tree and residential building.

Two passengers, including a 15-year-old, sustained serious injuries.

The court sentenced the defendant to 16 months concurrent incarceration, a 2-year driving prohibition, and probation.

The judgment emphasizes the primacy of general deterrence and denunciation in impaired driving cases, noting an upward trend in sentencing for such offences despite the defendant's sympathetic personal circumstances, good antecedents, and genuine remorse.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following events that occurred on July 1, 2016.

The complainant and defendant met at a sports bar and subsequently engaged in consensual sexual activity at the defendant's university residence, including oral sex and digital penetration.

The complainant alleged that after this consensual activity, the defendant initiated three separate instances of vaginal intercourse without her consent while she was asleep or attempting to sleep.

The defendant's position was that all sexual intercourse was consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's evidence, finding that the defendant initiated sexual intercourse without obtaining consent and that the complainant had clearly expressed her lack of consent by words and gesture.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The defence challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and whether the evidence established impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the officer possessed reasonable and probable grounds based on the accused's erratic driving behaviour, odour of alcohol, admission of consumption, and physical signs of impairment.

The court convicted the accused of impaired operation and stayed the over 80 charge pursuant to the Keinapple principle.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel under s. 7 of the Charter after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

The court considered whether the accused met the three-part Rowbotham test: ineligibility for Legal Aid after exhausting appeals, indigence preventing retention of counsel, and risk that the absence of counsel would compromise the right to a fair trial.

Although the court accepted that Legal Aid appeals had been exhausted and that the complexity and seriousness of the case could compromise trial fairness without counsel, it found that the accused failed to establish indigence.

The court concluded that the accused had divested himself of assets through questionable non-arm’s-length property transfers and failed to provide corroborating financial documentation.

As a result, the application for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of physical evidence and statements obtained following a vehicle stop.

Police stopped the accused based on an alleged smell of marihuana and subsequently searched the vehicle, discovering a loaded handgun.

The court found the officer’s evidence regarding the odour of marihuana not credible and concluded that the detention, arrest, and search lacked lawful foundation.

Multiple breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were established, including failure to provide timely access to counsel and continued questioning after the accused requested a lawyer.

Applying the framework from Grant and related jurisprudence, the court held the breaches were serious and admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence and statements were excluded under s. 24(2).

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault but successfully appealed based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, resulting in an order for a new trial.

The applicant brought an application seeking to return to the pre-election stage to elect a trial by judge and jury and have a preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the application under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding that the lack of adequate legal representation included the initial election process, and denying a re-election would infringe the applicant's rights under sections 7 and 11(f).