Stephen DiClemente

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, emphasizing the large quantity of fentanyl (409.60 grams), the accused's prior drug trafficking conviction, and the fact that the offences were committed while serving a conditional sentence.

The defence sought 6 years imprisonment, arguing that the accused was a runner motivated by addiction rather than profit, had no criminal record for violence, and had demonstrated rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years, taking into account the accused's vulnerable background, Indigenous heritage, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and evidence of remorse and rehabilitation efforts, while recognizing the serious dangers of fentanyl trafficking.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a statement made by the defendant, G.C., to police following his arrest for dangerous operation causing death related to a motor vehicle collision.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence from police officers and the circumstances surrounding the statement, including the delay in custody, the timing of informing the defendant of the fatality, and the failure to advise him of his imminent release.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada principles on voluntariness and credibility, the judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's statement was made with free will, rendering it inadmissible at trial.

The accused, Laurie Toyka Simon, charged with importing cocaine, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal after the Crown closed its case.

The defence argued that the actus reus of importing was not complete because the suitcase containing the cocaine was abandoned at the airport before clearing Customs.

The court dismissed the motion, ruling that the actus reus was factually completed when the accused physically took possession of the suitcase from the carousel and removed its luggage tag, and legally completed when the drugs crossed the border into Canada, regardless of final customs clearance.

The accused, A.Z.A., was sentenced following convictions for three counts of threatening to cause death, one count of sexual assault, and one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm against his wife and daughters.

The offences occurred over a lengthy period, involving a pattern of domestic violence and abuse of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness and duration of the crimes, the victim's vulnerability, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior criminal record.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, and drawing comparisons to similar cases involving intimate partner violence, the court imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a weapons prohibition, and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats against his wife and children.

The Crown led evidence of prior discreditable conduct to provide context for the abusive relationship.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assaults in their apartment to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies regarding historical events.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, Nakhari Henry-Robinson, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, careless storage of a firearm, and breaches of a release order and a probation order.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a significant and related criminal record and the dangerous nature of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, the accused's youth (22 years old), challenging social context (anti-Black racism, poverty, exposure to gun violence), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for firearms offences, rejecting the defence's argument for a conditional sentence or time served.

The court imposed a sentence of 40 months for the firearm offence, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, resulting in 17.5 months of additional jail time after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit.

The applicants, sought for extradition, applied for disclosure of U.S. customs and Canadian police notes, Information to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants and production orders, and communications between prosecutors.

They alleged breaches of Charter rights (ss. 8 and 9) due to warrantless searches and non-compliance with seizure reporting, and abuse of process (s. 7) regarding the timing of Canadian charge withdrawals.

The court found an air of reality to the s. 8 claims regarding the initial warrantless border search of electronic devices and the failure to comply with s. 489.1 of the Criminal Code, ordering disclosure of the notes and ITOs.

However, the s. 9 argument regarding arrest and the s. 7 abuse of process claim lacked an air of reality, and disclosure of prosecutorial communications was denied.