Sid Freeman

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of his nephew, causing catastrophic injuries resulting in permanent quadriplegia and confinement to a wheelchair.

The court imposed a sentence of 7½ years (90 months) less a day, with credit for 5½ years (66 months) of pre-sentence custody, leaving 2 years less a day to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court balanced the devastating and life-altering nature of the victim's injuries against mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, sincere remorse, difficult upbringing, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, offences carrying a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a five-year global sentence but disagreed on the allocation of pre-sentence custody.

The court held that enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit), including frequent lockdowns and the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black inmates, can be applied even when a mandatory minimum sentence is imposed.

The court credited the offender with standard 1.5:1 Summers credit plus an additional six months for harsh conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown brought an application to admit expert evidence regarding street gangs, specifically the rivalry between 'C3' and the 'Scarlettwood Crips'.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert to provide context and establish motive for the seemingly random shooting of an unarmed man.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and the officer was not properly qualified.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence was logically relevant to motive, necessary to assist the jury in understanding the context of the shooting, and that the officer was qualified.

The court ruled that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to specific exclusions of certain highly prejudicial videos and appropriate jury instructions.

The applicant, awaiting trial for obstruct justice, brought a motion to exclude the transcript of his compelled testimony from his mother's preliminary inquiry, alleging violations of sections 7 and 13 of the Charter.

The applicant had refused to answer substantive questions at the preliminary inquiry, leading to the obstruct justice charge.

The court dismissed the section 7 claim, finding no principle of fundamental justice that balances the necessity of evidence against a witness's psychological integrity.

However, the court granted the section 13 claim, holding that the transcript constituted incriminating evidence and that the obstruct justice charge, which was based on a refusal to provide material evidence rather than giving false evidence, did not fall within the perjury or contradictory evidence exceptions to section 13.

The offender was sentenced after conviction for discharging a firearm with intent to wound, aggravated assault, multiple firearms possession offences, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and breaches of probation and recognizance.

The offences arose from a shooting in a Toronto townhouse complex in which the victim was shot in the leg during a confrontation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for gun violence while considering the offender’s youth, family support, and prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the principle that a first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible while meeting sentencing objectives.

Applying the totality principle and considering mandatory minimum penalties, the court imposed a global sentence of eight years and three months before credit for pre‑sentence custody.

Credit at 1.5:1 for 999 days of pre‑sentence custody reduced the remaining sentence to four years, one month, and twenty‑one days.