Nicholas Samuel Hegedus

This decision addresses multiple Charter challenges raised by Bambot Njei-Bentley in relation to his arrest for impaired operation and refusal to provide breath samples under the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the validity of the breath demand, the reasonableness of the arrest, and the police's compliance with the informational and implementational duties under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The judge found no breaches of sections 8, 9, or 10(b) rights that would warrant exclusion of evidence.

The Crown was found to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally and unequivocally refused to comply with a lawful breath demand without a reasonable excuse, resulting in a conviction on the refusal charge.

The impaired operation charge was dismissed on Crown's own admission.

The Crown applied for an order under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to cross-examine two witnesses, Mandi Lalonde and John Lalonde, in the trial of Shawn Folkes, who is self-represented and charged with five offences including uttering threats and mischief.

The Crown argued that the charges were "in respect of" criminal harassment, making the order mandatory under s. 486.3(2), or alternatively, discretionary under s. 486.3(3) to ensure full and candid testimony given the witnesses' fear.

The court granted the application, finding that the charges were substantively "in respect of" criminal harassment and that appointing counsel was in the interest of the proper administration of justice, dismissing the accused's concerns about bias and counsel's preparedness.

K.P. was convicted, following guilty pleas, of sexual assault of a female under 16, making child pornography, and extortion, all arising from a sexual relationship with a young female, B.C., which included grooming, luring, and a threat to disseminate a sexual video.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's age (13-15), K.P.'s position as a family friend, the extended period and invasive nature of the sexual activity, and the creation and threatened use of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included K.P. being a first-time offender, having family support, facing immigration consequences, and entering a guilty plea.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and guided by sentencing ranges for similar offences, the court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders including DNA orders, a weapons prohibition, SOIRA compliance, and a no-contact order with the victim.

Tristan Piper pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his four-month-old son, Liam, who died from blunt force head trauma and other injuries inflicted by Piper.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust by a parent, the vulnerability of the child, and Piper's failure to seek medical attention or disclose the true cause of injuries.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court imposed a nine-year penitentiary sentence, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused, Jairo Ortiz-Picon, faced multiple charges related to his former girlfriend, Karla Moreno.

The trial involved evidence and submissions on charges including criminal harassment, unlawfully in a dwelling house, theft, possession of an identity card, harassing communications, and breach of release orders.

The court found the accused guilty on most charges, including unlawful entry, theft of a cell phone, possession of a health card, harassing communications, and breach of curfew, based on the complainant's credible testimony and corroborating evidence.

However, the criminal harassment charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt, specifically regarding whether the complainant's fear for safety was reasonable given evidence of continued contact and social outings.

Nicholas Coffin pleaded guilty to four counts of arson endangering life and one count of possession of incendiary material after setting fire to vehicles at the residences of family members and a friend.

The court considered aggravating factors including the serious impact on victims (physical, emotional, financial), the breach of trust, the planned nature of the offences, the danger to children and emergency services, and the extensive property damage.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and expression of remorse (though minimized).

The court imposed a global sentence of four years and six months in the penitentiary, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

Michael Rodgers, a 24-year-old repeat offender with a severe drug addiction, pleaded guilty to six Criminal Code offences, including two counts of failing to stop for police, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and breaches of probation and release orders.

The offences involved two separate police chases where he drove dangerously while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, disregard for court orders, and public safety risk, balanced against mitigating factors like his guilty plea, remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The primary issues were determining a fit global sentence and the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to prison lockdowns and COVID-19 quarantining.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, less 286 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by a one-year probation order and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The Crown applied for the appointment of counsel for a youth who was the subject of a third party records application under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to appoint counsel for the youth in third party records proceedings.

The court reviewed relevant case law and concluded that it possessed inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and to appoint counsel for the youth, emphasizing the importance of youth having access to legal representation in proceedings affecting their interests.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace following charges related to a loaded firearm found in her car.

The applicant argued errors in the initial decision and a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan.

The Crown conceded the pandemic as a material change, allowing a de novo assessment.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the seriousness of the current charges (including being in breach of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence), and the inadequacy of the proposed surety and release plan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her onus on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and that releasing her would undermine confidence in the administration of justice, even considering the pandemic.