Shalini Gunawardhane

The court sentenced Tayshaun Powell for reckless discharge of a firearm, considering the impact of anti-Black racism, his personal background, and the circumstances of the offence.

The court imposed a 3.5-year custodial sentence, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount, exceptional personal circumstances and systemic factors justified a sentence below the usual range for such offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance.

While on bail for other firearms offences, the accused posted a picture of a handgun on a web forum, leading to a police search of his residence.

During the search, he discarded a loaded handgun from an 11th-floor balcony.

The court considered the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, and the impact of systemic racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, leaving 430 days to serve.

The applicant, charged with two counts of murder, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence extracted from an iPhone seized upon his arrest.

The applicant argued that the search warrant was overly broad, the police ignored its limitations, the affiant misled the issuing justice, and the police failed to file reports to a justice and lost a USB key containing the extracted data.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stolen phone and that the failure to file reports and the loss of the USB key violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the evidence was highly reliable and crucial to the Crown's case, and its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and robbery, sought a bail review under s. 522 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed that the pandemic was a material change, granting jurisdiction to review the detention order.

However, the court found that the applicant's detention remained necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite a strict proposed release plan involving house arrest and electronic monitoring, the court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the applicant would commit further offences and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity and circumstances of the alleged offences.