Neil Singh

The defendant, Roydin Gerard Dias, pleaded guilty to multiple firearms and robbery-related charges, including possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unauthorized possession of a firearm, vehicle occupancy with a shotgun, robbery with an imitation firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, use of an imitation firearm, and disguise with intent.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court confirmed that a pharmacy incident, where nothing was taken but threats were made with a firearm, constituted robbery under section 343(c) of the Criminal Code, applying the definition of assault from section 265.

Aggravating factors included unsafe firearm storage, illegal possession purpose, dangerous flight from police, and the impact on victims and the community.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, genuine remorse, no prior criminal record, and difficult pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years (54 months), with credit for 21.5 months of pre-trial custody, leaving 32 months to serve concurrently for all charges.

Additional orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of weapons.

The accused, Malcolm Dennis Edwards, pleaded not guilty to multiple charges including failing to stop, obstructing a peace officer, assault with a weapon, and various firearm possession offences.

The trial addressed Charter allegations regarding the validity of an arrest warrant and the admissibility of seized evidence, as well as the identity of the driver in a separate incident.

The court found the arrest warrant lawfully obtained and the firearm admissible.

While the accused conceded guilt on the August 7 driving allegation, the Crown failed to prove identity for the June 10 charges, leading to an acquittal on those counts.

The accused was convicted on the August 7 charges.

The accused applied to revisit a pre-trial ruling that admitted expert police evidence regarding street gangs.

The defence argued that their willingness to make factual admissions about gang membership and the existence of the gang constituted a material change in circumstances, rendering the expert evidence unnecessary and overly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed factual admissions lacked the necessary context that the expert evidence was meant to provide to the jury.

Furthermore, the Crown did not agree to the admissions, and the court could not compel such an agreement.

Three offenders were convicted by a jury of kidnapping, extortion, and related offences committed with a firearm for the benefit of a street gang.

The victim, a fellow gang member, was kidnapped and threatened over a stolen gun.

The court sentenced the lead offender to 11 years, the secondary offender with a lengthy record to 9 years, and the third offender with better rehabilitation prospects to 6 years, all subject to half-time parole eligibility and credit for pre-sentence custody including lockdown time.

The Crown applied for two orders regarding witness D.H. in a criminal trial: to permit D.H. to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, and to admit D.H.'s video statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted both applications, finding that CCTV testimony was necessary due to an attempt by gang members to intimidate D.H. in the courtroom, which interfered with the proper administration of justice.

The court also found that admitting D.H.'s video statement was appropriate given D.H.'s age at the time of the offence and the short timeframe between the incident and the statement.

The accused was tried on three charges: forcible confinement (March 2012), assault (July 5-6, 2012), and uttering threats (September-December 2012).

The Crown withdrew the forcible confinement and uttering threats counts during trial.

The trial proceeded on the assault charge, with the Crown alleging the accused spat on and punched the complainant at an arcade, then dragged, pulled by the hair, and stomped on her at a nearby location.

The defence was a complete denial, alleging the incident was fabricated.

The court found the accused guilty of assault based on the credible and corroborative evidence of the complainant and a key eyewitness, rejecting the defence evidence as unreliable.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following an incident in the early morning hours of July 27, 2011.

The accused admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol reading of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

However, the accused denied having care and control of the vehicle, claiming he was merely sitting in the driver's seat to smoke a cigarette.

The accused also brought a Charter challenge under sections 7 and 24, alleging that police negligence in obtaining and preserving CCTV footage from a Tim Hortons location constituted a breach of his right to make full answer and defence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting his credibility and finding that he had care and control of the vehicle.

The court also dismissed the Charter motion, finding that the police conduct did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that any prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights was not sufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with three counts of assault and attempted choking to enable sexual assault, all allegedly committed against the complainant in 2008 during the deterioration of their common law relationship.

The Crown alleged that in July 2008, the defendant choked the complainant while fondling her, and in September 2008, he pushed her causing her to strike her head.

The defendant denied all allegations.

The court found that the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court noted material inconsistencies between the complainant's police statement and trial testimony regarding the choking incident, the timing of the criminal allegations relative to family court proceedings, and the absence of any mention of the criminal allegations in the complainant's restraining order application despite citing safety concerns.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.