Richard M. Goldman

A young person, age 15 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault arising from a home invasion on June 25, 2015.

The accused was part of a group of six individuals (including two adults) who invaded a residence in east Toronto armed with two handguns and a crowbar.

While the accused did not directly inflict violence, he participated in the criminal enterprise.

One victim was shot twice in the abdomen and pelvis, sustaining serious injuries including permanent nerve damage.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months custody (3 months 25 days closed, 4 months open, 4 months community supervision) followed by 12 months probation, with credit for 18 months of restrictive bail conditions and 3 days pre-trial custody.

A DNA order and 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent.

The trial judge had imposed two consecutive sentences of six months less a day, acknowledging a fit sentence would be 48 months, and gave 17 months credit for 11 months of pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a fit sentence would be a further 19 months of incarceration.

However, because the respondent had already served the conditional sentence and the Crown did not seek further incarceration, the sentence was stayed.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent.

The trial judge had determined an appropriate sentence of 39 months, reduced for cooperation and parity.

The Court of Appeal held that a conditional sentence was not available due to the respondent's previous criminal record for a similar offence, applying R. v. Fice.

The appeal was allowed, the conditional sentence was set aside, and a sentence of 21 months of incarceration was imposed after crediting time served and cooperation.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision committing him to stand trial on charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a highway collision involving a tractor trailer.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge erred by focusing on the consequences of the driving rather than the manner of driving, and by failing to conduct a limited weighing of circumstantial evidence.

The reviewing court held the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the evidence, including expert accident reconstruction and traffic conditions in a construction zone where lanes were merging.

The court concluded there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.