P. Griffiths

A young person pleaded guilty to five offences including inciting hatred against identifiable groups, mischief related to religious properties, uttering threats, possession of weapons, and failure to comply with a youth sentence.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court rejected the application, finding that while the presumption of reduced moral culpability was rebutted due to the planned nature of the offences and the offender's near-adult age, a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold the young person accountable.

The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration, noting the positive progress made by the offender while in custody and the availability of intensive counselling and support services within the youth justice system.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug (marijuana) on June 25, 2014, in Ottawa.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by marijuana.

The evidence included observations of marijuana smoke emanating from the vehicle, the accused's admission to smoking, and performance on drug influence evaluation tests administered approximately one to one and a half hours after the stop.

The court found that divided attention tests, particularly the modified Romberg balance test, heel-to-toe walk, and one-leg stand test, demonstrated significant impairment of the accused's ability to perform tasks requiring divided attention, which is essential to safe driving.

The accused was convicted on both the impaired driving charge and the marijuana possession charge.

The defendants were charged with aiding and abetting others to enter Canada without appearing for examination before a Canada Border Services Officer, contrary to section 124(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendants brought a constitutional challenge under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and sections 15, 7, and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendants claimed an aboriginal right to mobility within Mohawk territory at Akwesasne for family and community purposes without reporting at the border, and alleged that the reporting requirements were discriminatory and violated their liberty and freedom of association.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges and found the defendants guilty.