Paula Seymour

The offender, Troy Matthews, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The firearm and ammunition were found hidden in his home, where his three young children resided.

The prosecution sought a 24-month global sentence, while the offender sought 18 months (net 15 months after credit for pre-trial custody and systemic racism).

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record and unsafe storage of the firearm, and mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea, remorse, strong family support, and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and the experience of racism.

A global sentence of 21 months imprisonment was imposed (18 months for firearm possession, 3 months consecutive for breach of prohibition), reduced by 2 months for restraint/totality and 5 months for pre-trial custody/racism, resulting in a net 14-month provincial reformatory sentence.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a 20-year prohibition for other firearms/ammunition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

The defendant, Mahdi Kamal Afrah, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breaching a release order.

The offences involved a shooting in a public parking garage where one victim sustained a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the firearm offences, and significant mitigating factors, such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and severe past trauma (abuse in Somalia, motor vehicle accident, mental health issues).

The court also gave significant mitigation for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including a hand injury due to inadequate prison care and prolonged lockdowns.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence advocated for 5 years.

The applicants, facing multiple drug and firearms charges, brought a pre-trial motion alleging various Charter violations during their arrest and the subsequent searches of a vehicle and a residential unit.

The court dismissed the claims regarding arbitrary arrest, search incident to arrest, strip search, and right to counsel, finding the police had reasonable grounds and acted lawfully.

However, the court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the residential unit contained materially misleading and inaccurate information.

After excising the misleading details, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrant, resulting in a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms and drugs found in the unit under section 24(2), citing the seriousness of the police negligence in drafting the ITO.

The Crown applied under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness, S.B., on a prior inconsistent statement.

The accused opposed, arguing the statement's reliability was compromised due to the circumstances of its taking, including S.B.'s detention without Charter or Youth Criminal Justice Act rights being provided, and aggressive police questioning.

The court found S.B. was detained, not informed of her rights to counsel or to remain silent, and was a young person whose YCJA rights were breached.

The court also noted the unrecorded initial questioning and the coercive nature of the police interview.

Concluding that the statement's reliability was questionable and that granting the application would not serve the ends of justice, the court dismissed the Crown's application.

Following a 14-day jury trial, the offender, Lincoln Lee Dawkins, was convicted of importing cocaine into Canada and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the large quantity of cocaine (17.34 kg), the nature of the drug, and its concealment in a secure airport washroom.

Mitigating factors included being a first-time offender, strong rehabilitation prospects, exemplary conduct on bail for 5.5 years, and significant collateral immigration consequences (likely deportation).

The court rejected the Crown's submission that the offender was a principal, finding him to be a courier, and distinguished his case from others involving airport employees with breach of trust.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, restraint, and parity with a co-accused, the court imposed a sentence of nine years and six months' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and unlawful confinement after an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, testified that the accused forced his way into her room, ripped off her underwear, and punched her repeatedly when she tried to escape.

The accused claimed they engaged in consensual sexual activity that went wrong and that he punched her to stop her from using the telephone.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it contradictory and implausible.

While the court found the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent, it accepted her evidence that she did not consent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused, a former director at a charity, was charged with fraud after it was discovered he had requisitioned over $115,000 in payments to two companies he secretly controlled.

The accused claimed the companies were used to pay subcontractors in cash to save the charity money, and that the executive director approved the scheme.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as a fabrication, finding that the companies did no legitimate work, the accused forged the executive director's signature on contracts, and the scheme was a simple case of employee theft.

The accused was found guilty of fraud.

The accused applied on the trial date for an adjournment of a fraud over $5,000 trial, alleging outstanding disclosure from a third‑party employer and the absence of a material witness.

The court reviewed the governing principles for adjournments from Darville v. The Queen and the procedural requirements under the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court found no evidence that relevant disclosure remained outstanding, noting the materials were third‑party records already provided by the Crown where available and that the defence had earlier confirmed trial readiness.

The defence also failed to establish that the absent witness was material or that the witness could be secured at a later date.

The application was unsupported by the required notice and affidavit materials.

The court held the defence failed to meet the burden for an adjournment and dismissed the application.