3 total
Two Indigenous men received suspended sentences for rioting at a police detachment, emphasizing Gladue principles.
Two Indigenous men from Pikangikum First Nation were sentenced following their guilty pleas to charges arising from a riot at the police detachment on June 27, 2015.
The riot began as a peaceful protest over an arrest involving tasering but escalated into violence, with the accused breaking into the detachment and attempting to breach the barracks where officers had retreated.
The court imposed conditional sentences with probation, crediting time served and emphasizing reconciliation and Gladue principles, while acknowledging the systemic social crisis affecting the community.
The defendant corporation was convicted of operating overweight commercial vehicles after failing to rebut the presumption of weigh scale accuracy and failing to establish due diligence.
The defendant corporation was charged with six counts of operating commercial vehicles over the allowable weight during freeze-up periods under section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt using weigh scale records from the Weyerhaeuser mill.
The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it took reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, holding that while the defendant implemented various measures (air gauges, driver training, a 105% target weight), these were insufficient given the known limitations of air gauges and the availability of alternative scales for verification.
The defendant was sentenced to minimum fines of $100 per count with six months to pay.
The court upheld overweight vehicle convictions and overturned a suspended sentence that lacked evidentiary foundation.
The respondent company was convicted of three offences under Section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act for operating overweight vehicles during freeze-up.
The company appealed the convictions while the Crown appealed the sentence.
The court upheld all convictions, finding no error in law by the trial justice.
However, the court found that the trial justice erred in suspending the passing of sentence based on unsubstantiated submissions regarding potential bankruptcy.
The court imposed the minimum fine of $100 plus $20 costs on each charge for a total of $360, with ninety days to pay.
