Peter Beach

The accused pleaded guilty to seven offences committed between November and December 2017, including uttering threats to cause death, robbery with a firearm, disguise with intent, theft of a motor vehicle, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The offences included a home invasion robbery where the accused and an accomplice, armed with pellet guns, forcibly entered the residence of the victims, bound their hands, and stole approximately $5,000 in cash and a vehicle.

The accused also made threatening social media posts against another individual.

The court imposed a global sentence of 84 months imprisonment, with ancillary orders including a non-communication order, DNA sample requirement, and lifetime weapons prohibition.

Following findings of guilt, the Crown sought to have the accused convicted under s. 151(a) of the Criminal Code, which carries a mandatory minimum punishment of one year imprisonment.

The court had to determine whether a previous declaration by another Superior Court judge, which found the mandatory minimum unconstitutional and of no force or effect, was binding.

The court held that the previous declaration was binding on the Crown and that the mandatory minimum ceased to exist.

Consequently, sentencing would proceed using applicable principles in the absence of a mandatory minimum.

The offender was convicted after trial of ten indictable firearms-related charges and one count of breach of probation arising from a single incident on November 27, 2014, in which he carried a concealed firearm to a restaurant, pointed it at a group of men, chased two of them while pointing the weapon, entered a motor vehicle with the firearm, and subsequently bragged about the incident on social media.

The court imposed a sentence of 48 months imprisonment, comprising 30 months concurrent on the active firearm offences and breach of probation, plus 18 months consecutive for four firearm prohibition breaches.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 6-year exemplary sentence and the defence request for 30 months, finding that while the offences were serious and committed by an offender with a violent criminal history and demonstrated contempt for court orders, the circumstances did not warrant the Crown's proposed sentence.

The defendant, Sarah Lepine, faced charges of impaired driving, impaired driving causing bodily injury, and dangerous driving causing bodily injury following a single-vehicle rollover collision.

The defence challenged the admissibility of hospital blood test records via a Garifoli application, which the court dismissed, finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) sufficient.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving and impaired driving causing bodily injury based on blood alcohol evidence and expert opinion.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of dangerous driving causing bodily injury, citing an "abysmally inadequate investigation" by the police that failed to establish a "marked departure" in the manner of driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with 11 firearm-related offences arising from an incident on November 27, 2014, at a restaurant in Ottawa where he allegedly brandished a firearm at patrons.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification by Sheyna Antoine, corroborated by vehicle registration evidence linking the accused to the suspect vehicle and Twitter messages posted by the accused describing the incident.

The court found the identification evidence reliable when considered holistically with the corroborating evidence, despite initial frailties in the eyewitness testimony.

The court also determined that the object brandished was a real firearm based on witness descriptions, the manner of use, and the accused's own admissions in his Twitter posts.

The accused was convicted on all 11 counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to two bank robberies committed in Montreal and Ottawa and to using an imitation firearm during the Montreal robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors including planning, threats of violence, and the accused’s extensive criminal record for similar offences, as well as mitigating factors such as guilty pleas and delay in transferring charges between jurisdictions.

Sentencing principles of proportionality, totality, denunciation, and deterrence were applied alongside the mandatory consecutive minimum sentence under s. 85 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined a global sentence of eight years was just and appropriate.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for presentence custody pursuant to s. 719(3.1) and the principles in Summers.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to his guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and noting that the trial judge's reasons were exemplary and the sentence was well within the range.

The trial judge had appropriately considered the guilty plea and the appellant's sincere remorse.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly examined the identification evidence, which was supported by circumstantial evidence, and did not misapprehend the evidence or fail to address discrepancies in witness descriptions.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for a home invasion and an assault on a taxi driver.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence for the home invasion was fit, but agreed with the Crown that the six-month sentence for the unrelated assault on the taxi driver should be served consecutively.

The appeal was allowed to make the sentences consecutive.