P. Brown

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 70 months, exceeding the presumptive 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

However, the court found that the applicant failed to comply with procedural requirements by not filing the application within the prescribed timeframe and not seeking leave to bring the application.

The court also found that the trial evidence could have been completed within the initially scheduled four days, with any extended period attributable to discrete exceptional circumstances including mistrial applications and a voir dire on video authenticity, both of which were reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable from the Crown's perspective.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a traffic stop and subsequent search, alleging arbitrary detention, unlawful search, and racial profiling.

The court found that the police lacked statutory authority under the Highway Traffic Act and reasonable suspicion for investigative detention, rendering the initial detention unlawful.

Furthermore, the court determined that racial stereotypes about Black criminality and dangerousness tainted the police's treatment of the accused throughout the interaction, leading to breaches of his ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, particularly the racial profiling, and the severe impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Following a judge-alone trial, the defendant was found guilty of multiple serious offences including use of an imitation firearm, robbery, forcible confinement, and several counts of sexual assault with a weapon and with a co-accused.

The offences involved a planned, violent gang assault on a vulnerable victim.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested time served (equivalent to 5.5 years).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the planned nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, the victim's vulnerability, and the defendant's lack of remorse, which indicated poor rehabilitation prospects.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's mental health and learning difficulties, family support, and credit for restrictive pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, deducting 5 years and 5 months for pre-sentence credit, leaving 4 years and 7 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a non-communication order were also made.

Duplicate counts were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, Shane Codrington, was charged with multiple offences including robbery, sexual assault with an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault with a weapon, stemming from an incident on July 10, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence including the complainant's testimony, video surveillance, and forensic DNA evidence linking a co-accused.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming an alibi and that evidence was planted.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by video and medical evidence.

The court rejected the accused's alibi and claims of planted evidence, finding his testimony untruthful.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one related to the co-accused's participation in the elevator assault.

The defendant pleaded guilty to disposing of a child's dead body with intent to conceal the birth, contrary to s. 243 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed that a custodial sentence was not appropriate.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was in the defendant's best interests due to mental health issues and profound remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court found that while a conditional discharge was in the defendant's best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation order, including conditions for counselling and a victim surcharge.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon (a USB charger cord) against his six-year-old son.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 30 days custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offence, the accused's exemplary rehabilitation efforts, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, mental health issues at the time of the offence, and strong family support warranted restraint and emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

The court distinguished the case from Crown authorities involving offenders with criminal records and lack of remorse.