S. Hinkson

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a house arrest term of a release order contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He was found alone at 4:30 a.m. near Yonge and Dundas in Toronto, holding an open alcoholic beverage.

The defence brought a directed verdict application, arguing the Crown failed to negate exceptions in the release order permitting travel to and from work.

The court dismissed the application, relying on R. v. Blaker to hold the exceptions were not essential elements of the offence.

On the merits, the court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as no evidence supported any applicable exception to the house arrest condition.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of 45 months, while the defence sought 30 months.

The court considered the offender's significant personal hardships, including a difficult upbringing, abuse, severe health challenges, and a long history of steady employment despite these issues.

Finding that the offender's unique circumstances justified a departure from the usual 3 to 5 year range for importing a kilogram of cocaine, the court imposed a sentence of 33 months imprisonment.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery committed at night against vulnerable victims using bear spray.

The accused had a prior conviction for robbery resulting in a significant penitentiary sentence.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to 5 years in the penitentiary, less 430 days of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving 3 years and 300 days to serve concurrently on both counts.

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing 4.1 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 to 8 years’ imprisonment while the defence sought 6 years, both acknowledging a general range of 6 to 8 years for drug couriers importing multi‑kilogram quantities absent exceptional circumstances.

The court considered mitigating factors including the accused’s lack of criminal record, young age, parental responsibilities, educational progress, employment history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

However, the court emphasized the serious societal harm caused by cocaine trafficking and held that the mitigating circumstances did not justify a downward departure from the established range.

A custodial sentence within the range was imposed along with ancillary orders.

A young person was charged with aggravated assault arising from a violent attack at a restaurant that resulted in the complainant losing an eye.

The prosecution relied primarily on identification evidence, including surveillance video and testimony from a school resource officer who believed he recognized the accused in the footage.

The court found the officer’s identification evidence was tainted because he knew the accused was a suspect before viewing the video and the features relied upon were generic.

Other witnesses either failed to identify the accused or provided inconsistent descriptions, and the surveillance footage was of poor quality.

The court concluded that the identification evidence was unreliable and did not establish the accused’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.