P. Aubin

The defendant was found guilty of several firearms and drug offences by a trial judge who provided brief oral reasons and promised written reasons to follow.

The trial judge subsequently retired without providing the written reasons.

Furthermore, the trial judge recorded convictions for seven counts, despite the defendant only being arraigned on five.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the brief oral reasons were insufficient to allow another judge to impose sentence under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code.

Given the lack of reasons, the unarraigned convictions, and the resulting miscarriage of justice, the court granted the motion and declared a mistrial.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty by a jury of importing nearly two kilograms of heroin into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 years, while the defence proposed 9 to 11 years.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, community service, and counselling as mitigating factors against the severe aggravating nature of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 10.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.

The Crown applied for a review of a bail order releasing the respondent, who was charged with 22 offences including firearms offences and dangerous driving following a shooting and police chase.

The reviewing judge admitted new evidence consisting of the respondent's parole officer's notes, which showed a history of non-compliance.

The judge revoked bail, finding that the respondent's detention was necessary on both the secondary ground (public safety) and the tertiary ground (maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice), given the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the respondent's history of breaching court orders.

During a criminal jury trial, the defence challenged testimony suggesting that the accused was known by a nickname, arguing the evidence was inadmissible hearsay.

The Crown contended the statement was admissible as an adoptive admission by silence because it was allegedly made in the accused’s presence.

The court reviewed the governing principles for adoptive admissions, including the requirement that the accused must have heard the statement and reasonably been expected to respond.

Because the evidentiary record did not establish that the accused was present or heard the statement, the foundational requirements were not met.

The jury was therefore prohibited from using the testimony as substantive evidence.

The applicant sought to exclude eyewitness identification evidence arising from a photo line‑up.

Evidence revealed that police had shown the witness several mug shots of suspects prior to conducting the formal photo line‑up and failed to keep notes or records of that interaction.

The court held that the undocumented pre‑line‑up exposure created a serious risk that the witness’s identification had been tainted and could not be meaningfully tested through cross‑examination.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of the earlier photographs and the witness’s statements during the line‑up indicating influence from them, the probative value of the identification evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The identification evidence was therefore excluded.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking cocaine, possessing proceeds of crime, offering to transfer a firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five to six years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of cocaine sold against the offender's significant community volunteer work, minor dated record, and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years in penitentiary, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.