Sophie Reynolds

The respondent, Michael Franchina, was sentenced to an absolute discharge and a weapons prohibition order under section 109 of the Criminal Code following a trial for assault with a weapon.

However, because the Crown had proceeded by summary conviction, a section 109 weapons prohibition order was not legally available upon the imposition of an absolute discharge.

The Crown conceded the sentencing error and brought the matter forward for review.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and varied the sentence to delete the weapons prohibition order.

This decision addresses a Crown application under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code for the disposition of firearms seized without a warrant from Melissa Dupree, who was subject to a Form 1 Mental Health Act intervention due to concerns about suicide risk.

The Court analyzed whether it was "not desirable" in the interests of safety that Ms. Dupree possess firearms, applying the legal test focused on current risk and responsibility as a gun owner.

Despite the initial concerns, the evidence, including psychiatric and psychological assessments and credible testimony from Ms. Dupree and her husband, established that she did not pose a risk to herself or others at the time of the hearing.

The Court denied the Crown’s application for forfeiture and prohibition, ordering the return of the firearms.

The accused, Anessa Katapatuk, pleaded guilty to simple assault and uttering threats.

The Crown sought 12 months jail, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court, applying Gladue and Ipeelee principles, found that a conditional discharge with 12 months probation was appropriate, emphasizing the accused's reduced moral blameworthiness due to her traumatic Indigenous background and systemic factors.

The judge concluded that incarceration would be contrary to the public interest and the rehabilitative goals of sentencing for an Indigenous offender.

N.M., a young person convicted of second-degree murder, sought a variation of his youth sentence under s. 94 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, requesting release into the community.

The Crown sought to confirm the sentence.

The court reviewed N.M.'s progress and institutional conduct, noting significant issues with his placement in adult maximum security facilities post-sentence, which hindered his rehabilitation.

Despite these systemic failures and N.M.'s positive attitude, the court found that N.M. had not yet met the burden to justify a sentence variation.

The sentence was confirmed, but an earlier optional review was scheduled for June 2024, acknowledging N.M.'s progress and the system's shortcomings.