Sophia Hettie Mary Newbould

The offender was convicted of possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after being found with the drugs in the footwell of a vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought 30 months to three years.

The court weighed the significant quantity of drugs as an aggravating factor against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, family support, and addiction issues as mitigating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and relying on appellate guidance for similar offences, the court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment.

Michael Schmidt appealed his conviction for obstructing a peace officer and his 60-day intermittent custodial sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the obstruction elements, the dismissal of third-party records and s.11(b) Charter delay applications, or the reconciliation of inconsistent verdicts.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, varying the sentence to a one-month conditional sentence.

The court found that the trial judge erred by "jumping the Crown" on sentencing without providing counsel an opportunity to make further submissions, despite the Crown having proposed a conditional sentence.

The accused were charged with possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of hydromorphone, following a police raid on a residence.

The court found the male accused guilty of possessing the methamphetamine and fentanyl, as circumstantial evidence linked him to the drugs found in the bathroom.

The female accused was acquitted of those charges but found guilty of simple possession of hydromorphone based on her admission to police regarding spoons containing morphine found in a bedroom.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging an arbitrary arrest contrary to s. 9 of the Charter after police stopped a vehicle targeting another suspect and arrested the applicant passenger without any prior information or reasonable grounds.

The court found that the arresting officers had no subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant, whose only connection was being a passenger in a vehicle driven by the target of a drug investigation.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court held the Charter breach was serious and had a significant impact on the accused’s liberty and privacy interests.

Although the drug evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution, the seriousness of the violation required exclusion.

With the evidence excluded, the Crown called no further evidence and an acquittal was entered.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of their s. 8 and s. 9 rights during a drug trafficking investigation.

The police arrested one accused based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, and subsequently conducted a warrantless 'clearing search' of the accused's residence before obtaining a search warrant.

The court found the arrest was lawful and based on reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court held the warrantless 'clearing search' violated s. 8 of the Charter as there were no exigent circumstances.

Despite the s. 8 breach, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was not serious, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the prosecution.

The applications were dismissed.

Sentencing for assault causing bodily harm arising from a violent beating that left the victim with facial fractures, concussion, permanent scarring, and ongoing psychological and physical effects.

The court treated the offence as serious violence, emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, and considered aggravating factors including pursuit of the victim, repeated blows after the victim was down, breach of bail, and a prior record for violence.

Applying Gladue and Ipeelee principles, the court took into account the offender's Indigenous background, intergenerational residential school impacts, personal trauma, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

A sentence of 11 months' imprisonment less seven months' combined credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions was imposed, leaving four months concurrent to an existing sentence, followed by 18 months' probation and ancillary orders.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and choking, as well as his 4.5-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge should have recused himself for having presided over a prior bail review, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year term was fit given the violence, threats, and the appellant's criminal record.

During a jury trial on charges of common assault and sexual assault, the accused brought a Corbett application seeking to edit his prior criminal record so that the Crown could not cross‑examine him on prior convictions if he testified.

The court applied the balancing test assessing whether the probative value of prior convictions for credibility exceeded their prejudicial effect.

Older convictions unrelated to honesty, including weapons possession, drug possession, and mischief, were excluded due to limited relevance and risk of prejudice.

However, convictions for personation with intent and multiple breaches of court orders were admitted because they bore directly on credibility and respect for the law.

The defence application was therefore granted in part.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to sufficiently scrutinize a key witness's evidence for reliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was aware of the weaknesses in the witness's evidence but explained why he accepted it.

The court held that the trial judge's credibility determination was entitled to deference.

The accused applied under s. 276.1 of the Criminal Code for permission to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant in a pending jury trial for sexual assault and related assault charges.

The defence argued the evidence was relevant to consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court held the accused failed to establish that the proposed evidence related to specific instances of sexual activity and failed to demonstrate that its probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s. 276(2).

The judge found the proposed evidence risked inviting impermissible reasoning that prior sexual activity made consent more likely.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trial judge took the initiative to order a Gladue report and properly considered the principles, despite the appellant only recently identifying as aboriginal.

The court commended the appellant's rehabilitation efforts but found no basis to interfere given the seriousness of the offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to five offences: assault causing bodily harm (July 9, 2011), breach of undertaking (December 1, 2011), uttering threats (January 6, 2012), assault on a peace officer (January 7, 2012), and breach of recognizance (January 6, 2012).

The assault on the victim resulted in serious injuries including spinal cord syndrome, chronic pain, and permanent disability.

The accused has a significant criminal record including six prior assault convictions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months and 4 days imprisonment (after crediting 61 days presentence custody) with concurrent sentences on the remaining charges, followed by 24 months probation with strict conditions including abstinence from alcohol, participation in treatment programs, and no contact with victims.