S. Scully

The court sentenced the offender after convictions for three armed robberies, one attempted armed robbery, related firearms offences, and multiple breaches of a weapons prohibition while on release.

Applying proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and totality principles, the court treated repeated planned gunpoint offences against vulnerable workers as highly aggravating, while also weighing youth, lack of record, family support, and evidence of systemic anti-Black racism context.

The court fixed a global fit sentence at nine years' custody before credit.

After credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, the remaining global custodial sentence was eight years and six months.

DNA and lifetime weapons prohibition orders were imposed, with additional no-contact and surcharge orders.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow the adult complainant to testify remotely via video-conference from Edmonton.

The accused, facing multiple charges of assault and assault with a weapon, opposed the application, asserting his right to face his accuser in person.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the complainant's personal circumstances, logistical difficulties, or the proposed remote setup to justify displacing the default requirement for in-person testimony.

The accused brought an application to sever charges of sexual assault and assault from charges of assault, mischief, and criminal harassment, all involving the same complainant.

The accused argued that trying the counts together would cause prejudice by inviting propensity reasoning.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the charges were factually and legally intertwined, the evidence was not complex, and a limiting instruction to the jury would adequately address any risk of prejudice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for 'Over 80', arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding breathalyzer results under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach and that samples were not taken 'as soon as practicable'.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that failing to take breath samples as soon as practicable deprives the Crown of the statutory presumption of identity but does not automatically violate s. 8 of the Charter.

The court upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding the impact of the breach was minimal and society had an interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed.