Roy Beresowsky

Nathaniel Bell pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm, trafficking in marijuana, and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The court considered aggravating factors including the seriousness of the firearms offences, Bell's leadership role in a robbery, and his criminal record while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, disadvantaged background, rehabilitation efforts in custody, and his serious medical condition (Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome and asthma), which made incarceration more onerous, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years and 7 months before credit for pre-sentence custody, which was at the low end of the range due to Bell's medical vulnerability and the harsh conditions of detention during the pandemic.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody was granted at 2:1 for 430 days, resulting in 2 years credit, leaving 2 years and 7 months to serve.

A motion to admit a statement made by the accused to police during a preliminary inquiry.

The accused was interviewed by police regarding a fraudulent loan scheme involving a false invoice for bakery equipment.

The Crown sought to introduce a statement made by the accused on March 18, 2015.

Following a voluntariness voir dire, the court excluded the statement on the basis that the Crown had not met its burden of proving voluntariness.

The court found that although the accused was not formally detained and received a standard witness caution, he was in fact a suspect at the time of the interview and was not provided with any information that would allow him to assess whether his statements could be used to his detriment.

The court concluded that the complete absence of information to assist the accused in making an informed decision about whether to speak to police raised reasonable doubts about the voluntariness of the statement.

The accused were jointly tried for fraud over $5,000 arising from a scheme using a stolen and forged TD bank draft to obtain approximately $1.9 million in gold bullion from a Montreal dealer.

The Crown’s case was largely circumstantial and relied on telephone records, cell tower data, and evidence concerning the acquisition and subsequent disposition of Perth Mint gold bars.

The trial judge assessed the evidence under the principles governing circumstantial cases and the framework in R. v. W. (D.).

The court rejected the explanations advanced by the accused and concluded that they had acted together to present the fraudulent draft, obtain the gold, and distribute or conceal it afterward.

The applicants, charged with defrauding a bank of over $1.8 million, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total time from charge to trial was approximately four years.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that while the 22 months of institutional delay exceeded the administrative guidelines, the delay was not unreasonable given the complexity of the case, the involvement of multiple accused, and the significant delay caused by the actions of the co-accused.

The court also found no meaningful prejudice arising from the delay itself.

The application was dismissed.