P. Maund

The 19-year-old accused was sentenced for a pharmacy robbery, masking, possession of a stolen vehicle, carjacking, and dangerous driving following a police pursuit.

The court found the carjacking and dangerous driving were motivated by a desire to escape apprehension for the pharmacy robbery, warranting consecutive sentences.

After considering the accused's youth, guilty pleas, and particularly harsh presentence custody conditions during the pandemic, the court imposed a total sentence of four years, reduced to five months and 24 days after applying enhanced credit for presentence custody.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit non-expert recognition evidence from the father and stepmother of one of the accused, who viewed video surveillance of the suspects.

The defence argued the evidence was inadmissible as the witnesses did not definitively identify the accused and their evidence was tainted by police.

The court held that the witnesses' long knowledge of the accused and their observations regarding clothing and physical characteristics were relevant to identification, and the evidence was admissible, with its weight to be determined by the jury.

During a criminal trial for a stabbing, the Crown applied under section 9.2 of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness on a prior inconsistent statement.

The witness testified at trial that one of the accused attempted to break up the fight, which contradicted his earlier police statement and preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court granted the application, finding the Crown could not have been expected to lead this evidence in-chief.

However, the court restricted the Crown from questioning the witness about post-offence phone calls with the accused, ruling that such questions would improperly suggest consciousness of guilt and be highly prejudicial.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused on a charge of first degree murder and committing him only for second degree murder.

The accused was alleged to have committed a drive-by shooting.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence, which was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of planning and deliberation.

The application was granted, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused to stand trial for first degree murder.

During a first-degree murder trial, proceedings were halted for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upon assessing the jury's availability to resume the trial in the fall, the court conducted individual inquiries with several jurors.

The court discharged two jurors due to undue hardship related to childcare, schooling, and employment concerns exacerbated by the pandemic.

As only nine jurors remained, and the parties did not consent to continue without a jury, a mistrial was declared.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial motions to edit the videotaped police statements of two co-accused before they were played for the jury.

The moving parties sought to excise references to fears of reprisal, the interviewing officer's opinions on the credibility of another witness, and portions of other witnesses' statements played during the interviews.

The court dismissed most of the requested edits, finding that the passages were necessary to provide context for the accused's responses and that any potential prejudice could be cured by proper limiting instructions to the jury.

A few specific passages lacking probative value and carrying potential prejudice were ordered excised.

The four co-accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to be seated at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's box during their trial.

The Crown opposed the application, citing courtroom security and the default practice of using the prisoner's box.

The court balanced the security concerns, which required six escort officers if the accused sat at counsel table, against trial fairness considerations, including the need for effective communication between the accused and their counsel during a lengthy trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused met their onus and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication and ensure the accused were viewed as individuals by the jury.

The applicants, Brian Nelson and Andrew Ramdass, brought certiorari applications to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision committing them to stand trial for manslaughter.

The charges arose from a physical altercation between two groups that resulted in a death.

The court dismissed Nelson's application, finding there was direct evidence from a witness that he punched the victim, which was sufficient for committal.

However, the court granted Ramdass' application and quashed his committal, concluding there was no admissible evidence from which a properly instructed jury could infer he intentionally applied force to the victim.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault involving brief anal penetration of the complainant during a workplace party after consensual dancing and kissing.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused’s lack of criminal record, positive pre‑sentence report, and rehabilitative prospects.

The defence sought a sentence of six months less a day due to immigration consequences that could lead to deportation.

The court held that while immigration consequences may be considered, they cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate range.

A custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years’ probation was imposed as proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for historical sexual offences against three complainants who were between eleven and thirteen years old at the time of the abuse.

The offences involved acts including gross indecency, sexual assault, and sexual touching for a sexual purpose, committed while the offender occupied positions of trust such as a hockey coach, mentor, and neighbour.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718, 718.01, and 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code, given the prolonged abuse, breach of trust, and lasting harm to the victims.

Although the offender had no prior criminal record and positive character evidence, these factors carried limited mitigating weight in light of the gravity of the offences.

A global sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml.

At trial, the accused’s statements to police were ruled inadmissible due to Charter breaches, yet the trial judge relied on those statements and other improper inferences to conclude the accused was the driver.

On appeal, the Crown conceded error on the impaired driving conviction.

The court held the trial judge materially erred by relying on inadmissible evidence and by drawing unreasonable inferences from equivocal circumstantial evidence regarding the identity of the driver.

The convictions were therefore unreasonable and unsupported by sufficient admissible evidence.

The offender was convicted of robbery with violence, use of an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and assault with a weapon arising from a planned home invasion.

Two masked offenders entered the victim’s home with handguns, demanded drugs and money, struck the victim with a firearm, and fled with minimal property.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, planning, disguises, and the sanctity of the home, as well as the offender’s criminal record.

Mitigating factors included character references and evidence of community involvement.

Prior appellate authorities on home invasion sentencing established a general range of approximately five to thirteen years.

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of five years, including the mandatory consecutive one‑year sentence for the imitation firearm offence.