S. Pennypacker

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon, as well as his sentence of 112 days in custody.

The convictions arose from an incident where the appellant intentionally drove his vehicle at a co-worker in an employee parking lot.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and reasons were sufficient.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge failed to articulate the mitigating factors and did not explain why a 90-day intermittent sentence, which was within the Crown's suggested range, was inappropriate.

The sentence was reduced to 90 days to be served intermittently, and probation was reduced to one year.

Sentencing decision for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of proceeds of crime arising from the transfer of large quantities of steroid pills and cash between vehicles.

Police seized approximately 220,000 steroid pills and $14,000 in currency.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including denunciation and deterrence.

While the offence involved a substantial commercial quantity of drugs, the offender was a first-time offender with positive community support and no aggravating factors under the CDSA.

The court imposed a conditional sentence rather than incarceration.

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a warrantless search following his arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He alleged violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that the resulting search was unlawful.

The court held that the arresting officer had both subjective and objectively reasonable grounds based on a reliable confidential informant, corroborating police investigation, and surveillance consistent with drug trafficking activity.

Because the arrest was lawful, the subsequent search of the accused’s person was a valid search incident to arrest.

The court therefore found no Charter breaches and declined to exclude the evidence.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought a pretrial application to admit the videotaped police interviews of the eight-year-old brother of the deceased under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The child had returned to Jamaica and his mother refused to permit him to testify.

While the necessity requirement was met, the court found the statements lacked threshold reliability due to material inconsistencies, the child's tendency to guess or make assumptions, and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Crown's application to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed.