Robert D. Farrington

The Superior Court of Justice sentenced two offenders, Ryan Daigneault and Daniel Bell, who pleaded guilty to transferring a handgun and two counts of cocaine trafficking.

Daigneault, identified as the president of the London chapter of the Outlaws motorcycle club, played a primary role in negotiations, while Bell acted as a courier.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for drug and firearm offenses, particularly given the involvement of a criminal organization.

Daigneault received a total sentence of nine years, reflecting his leadership role, extensive criminal record, and the significant quantities of drugs and firearms involved, with credits applied for pre-trial detention and strict bail conditions.

Bell, a first-time offender with a secondary role, received a five-year sentence in accordance with a joint submission from the Crown and defence, with the court applying principles of restraint and totality.

Both offenders were subject to secondary DNA orders and 10-year weapons prohibitions.

Shawn Norris was found guilty of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

This sentencing decision considered aggravating factors, including three prior impaired driving convictions, multiple victims, and dangerous driving, alongside mitigating factors such as admissions made during trial, employment history, family support, and an acquired brain injury that occurred post-offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives, while also considering the impact of the defendant's subsequent brain injury on the severity of incarceration.

The judge imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The defendant, Shawn Norris, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death, and impaired driving causing bodily harm and death, following a head-on collision.

The court found the defendant's driving objectively dangerous and a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, considering his erratic driving over several kilometers, including crossing a median and swerving into oncoming traffic.

Despite arguments of tire deflation or a sudden physical event, the court found no evidentiary support for these.

The court also found the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by a combination of voluntarily consumed drugs (methadone, lorazepam, trazadone, venlafaxine), noting he "double dosed" on methadone and took unprescribed Lorazepam, and was aware of the drugs' potential impairing effects.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference for the driving was drug impairment and that the mens rea presumption was not rebutted.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) in a sexual assault and sexual interference trial.

The accused opposed, arguing the evidential threshold was not met.

The court considered factors under s. 486.2(3), including the complainant's heightened anxiety and emotional state, finding that her ability to provide a full and candid account would be adversely influenced by the accused's presence.

Despite the case being "marginal" and lacking medical evidence, the court granted the application, concluding that CCTV would facilitate the complainant's testimony.

The applicant, Dylan Schaap, charged with second-degree murder and firearms offences, sought release on bail.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court reviewed the proposed release plan, including multiple sureties and electronic monitoring, and assessed the applicant's past conduct, the seriousness of the charges, and the strength of the Crown's case.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the onus to justify release on both secondary (public safety/recidivism/interference with justice) and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) grounds, citing concerns about the reliability of the sureties and the applicant's history of non-compliance and dishonesty.

The application for release was dismissed.

Krystle Oag pleaded guilty to 37 offences, including 30 counts of break and enter, committed over 15 months.

The offences involved targeting residences of individuals attending funerals, preying on their emotional vulnerability.

Stolen items included firearms, some unrecovered.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5.5 to 6 years, while the defence requested a time-served disposition or a conditional sentence, citing addiction and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court found the offences to be of extremely high gravity with high moral blameworthiness, aggravated by the targeting of vulnerable victims and the theft of firearms.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and a limited criminal record.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years, reduced to five and a half years (66 months) due to the particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 1,101 days.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given the seriousness of the crimes.

The defendant, Jason Borden, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and proceeded to trial on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The court reviewed video evidence and witness testimony, making detailed findings of fact regarding an altercation between Borden and Darius Salmon.

Borden raised defences of self-defence and accident.

The court found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and even if there were, Borden's actions were not reasonable given the circumstances, as Salmon was unarmed and did not physically threaten Borden before the gun was drawn.

The court also rejected the defence of accident, finding Borden's testimony regarding the gun's discharge not credible.

Consequently, Borden was found guilty on all three remaining counts.

The defendant, Nathan Hathaway, was charged with four counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and four counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug causing bodily harm following a tragic head-on collision.

The court assessed witness credibility, toxicology reports, and expert opinions regarding methamphetamine impairment and driving conduct.

It was found that the defendant voluntarily ingested a substantial amount of methamphetamine, which impaired his ability to drive, and his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver, demonstrating a disregard for public safety.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial for charges arising from a home invasion robbery on July 30, 2017.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, robbery, break and enter with assault, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon.

The Crown relied on video surveillance evidence rather than eyewitness identification.

The accused challenged committal, arguing the video quality was insufficient to identify him.

The court found the video was not sufficiently clear for direct identification but constituted circumstantial evidence of identity when considered with the accused's arrest the following day while wearing the same shirt seen in the video and being found in the registered vehicle of a co-accused.

During a criminal trial for manslaughter and aggravated assault, the Crown sought to call an expert witness in reply to the defence's expert on bloodstain analysis.

The defence opposed this, arguing it was not proper reply evidence and would cause trial unfairness if allowed as part of the Crown's case due to late disclosure.

The court ruled that the Crown could not call the expert in reply, as the evidence was foreseeable and based on existing facts.

However, the court permitted the Crown to call the expert as part of its case, provided the defence was given a brief adjournment to prepare for cross-examination and consult with their own expert, and with the option to recall previous witnesses.

The accused was charged with sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code and invitation to sexual touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The offences were alleged to have occurred between September 11, 2014 and December 2, 2014.

The complainant was 15 years old at the time; the accused was 24 years old.

The accused claimed he believed the complainant was 17 years old based on her appearance, behaviour, and statements made by her and her friend.

The court found that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's true age and convicted him on both charges.