Ranney Hintsa

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence for James Dobbs, who pled guilty to manslaughter, indignity to a body, and aggravated assault.

The sentence included 16 years for manslaughter, 3 years consecutive for indignity to a body, and 6 years consecutive for aggravated assault, for a total of 25 years less pre-sentence custody.

The court discussed the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, and found the joint submission appropriate given the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Dobbs' criminal history and mental health issues.

Sarah Davison pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession charges, including fentanyl and cocaine, and several Criminal Code offences.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court found Davison to be a mid-level dealer, distinguishing her from an "addict dealer" as characterized in prior case law.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, while also considering rehabilitation, the court imposed a 6-year concurrent sentence for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) trafficking and possession for purpose offences, 5 months concurrent for simple possession, and 30 days concurrent for the Criminal Code charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten charges including unlawfully being in a dwelling house, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, possession of stolen property (motor vehicles), occupying motor vehicles without consent, operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and failures to comply with recognizance conditions.

The charges spanned from July 2018 to August 2019.

The Crown sought 14-15 months incarceration while the defence sought 8.5 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine months pre-sentence custody, considering the principle of totality, Lord Coke's principle (that subsequent convictions cannot aggravate sentences for prior offences), and the accused's personal circumstances including functional illiteracy, family history of substance abuse, and depression.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons contrary to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it was grossly disproportionate to his circumstances.

The court found the mandatory minimum infringed section 12 and could not be justified under section 1.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 21 months was warranted based on the circumstances of the offence and offender, and declared the mandatory minimum invalid in these proceedings.

The defendants brought a Charter application under section 11(b) alleging that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached.

The delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 20.5 months.

The Crown acknowledged the delay was presumptively unreasonable and sought to justify it based on case complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court found neither complexity nor transitional circumstances applied.

The case involved straightforward factual issues regarding consent and age verification, with only three principal Crown witnesses and a five-day trial schedule.

The court granted the application and stayed all charges against the defendants.