Steven M. Hinkson

The offender was convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun with readily accessible ammunition and uttering threats to kill a former friend.

At the time of the offences, she was subject to a 10-year firearms prohibition and kept the weapon in an apartment shared with her two children.

The court distinguished the sentencing range for sawed-off shotguns from semi-automatic handguns but emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 36 months for the firearm offence and a consecutive 60 days for threatening, resulting in a net sentence of 33 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

During a jury trial for firearms offences, the Crown sought to call reply evidence to undermine the credibility of a defence witness who testified about two unidentified men looking for the complainant.

The Crown also sought to re-open cross-examination of the witness.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed reply evidence related solely to the witness's credibility and therefore offended the collateral fact rule.

The court also declined to permit further cross-examination, noting the Crown had already been given a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

During a jury trial for firearms offences, the defence called evidence suggesting third parties were responsible for the crime without bringing a pre-trial application to determine its admissibility.

The Crown applied for a mistrial, arguing the evidence was inadmissible and its late introduction caused irremediable prejudice.

The court ruled that while an application should have been brought, the failure to do so was an honest mistake.

The court found the evidence regarding two unidentified males was logically relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, making it admissible.

However, evidence suggesting the complainant possessed the firearm was excluded as speculative.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding the Crown was not irremediably prejudiced, but allowed the Crown to reconsider calling reply evidence.

The accused, Norine Tulloch, was found guilty by a jury of possession of 260 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a three-year federal penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, mitigating factors (remorse, family support, business prospects) and aggravating factors (prior conditional sentence for a similar offence, association with drug trade).

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory, followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized currency and a notebook.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement following an incident at the complainant's home.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from her boyfriend regarding her emotional state immediately after the incident, and text messages sent by the accused the day after the alleged assault.

The accused testified that the sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault but acquitted him of unlawful confinement, finding that while the Crown proved non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, it failed to establish the requisite intent to confine.

The accused, Ryan Wilson Christiansen, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime ($21,250).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantities of drugs, the sophisticated nature of the operation, and a prior trafficking conviction.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (31), family support, personal strengths, employment history, learning disability, and the recent suicide of his wife.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence as primary sentencing principles for drug trafficking.

After considering pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions, the court imposed a total effective sentence of five years and nine months imprisonment.

Ancillary orders included forfeiture of proceeds of crime and drugs, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery committed at night against vulnerable victims using bear spray.

The accused had a prior conviction for robbery resulting in a significant penitentiary sentence.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to 5 years in the penitentiary, less 430 days of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving 3 years and 300 days to serve concurrently on both counts.

The applicant sought to quash a general warrant authorizing surreptitious entry into a commercial room used to store suspected narcotics and to exclude resulting evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed whether the issuing justice had reasonable grounds to authorize the warrant under s. 487.01(1) of the Criminal Code based on an Information to Obtain supported by confidential informants and police surveillance.

Applying the deferential standard of warrant review, the court held that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence that could reasonably support issuance of the warrant.

The informant information was corroborated by surveillance and other investigative steps linking the applicant and his associate to the location.

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

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing 4.1 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 to 8 years’ imprisonment while the defence sought 6 years, both acknowledging a general range of 6 to 8 years for drug couriers importing multi‑kilogram quantities absent exceptional circumstances.

The court considered mitigating factors including the accused’s lack of criminal record, young age, parental responsibilities, educational progress, employment history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

However, the court emphasized the serious societal harm caused by cocaine trafficking and held that the mitigating circumstances did not justify a downward departure from the established range.

A custodial sentence within the range was imposed along with ancillary orders.

The applicant sought to quash a general warrant authorizing covert police entry into a commercial storage room and to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of s. 8.

The court first addressed whether the applicant had standing to challenge the search by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises.

Although the lease for the room was in the name of a business partner, the applicant had keys, used the space for joint business storage, and exercised practical access and control.

Applying the totality of the circumstances analysis from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held that the applicant had a sufficient expectation of privacy.

The applicant therefore had standing to challenge the warrant and proceed to the second stage of the application.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, arising from his participation in a home invasion robbery.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching two firearms prohibition orders and two probation orders.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the accused sought the mandatory minimum of 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, but applying the totality principle and considering the accused's youth.

The court also granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to onerous conditions.

A young person was charged with aggravated assault arising from a violent attack at a restaurant that resulted in the complainant losing an eye.

The prosecution relied primarily on identification evidence, including surveillance video and testimony from a school resource officer who believed he recognized the accused in the footage.

The court found the officer’s identification evidence was tainted because he knew the accused was a suspect before viewing the video and the features relied upon were generic.

Other witnesses either failed to identify the accused or provided inconsistent descriptions, and the surveillance footage was of poor quality.

The court concluded that the identification evidence was unreliable and did not establish the accused’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought a motion under s. 629 of the Criminal Code challenging the jury panel on the basis that the jury roll for the Thunder Bay district was not representative due to inadequate inclusion of First Nations persons living on reserves.

The motion relied on prior decisions criticizing the process for obtaining band lists and argued that insufficient changes had been made to address systemic underrepresentation.

The court reviewed evidence regarding steps taken by the Ministry of the Attorney General and local court officials, including revised procedures, outreach to band councils, offers to meet with communities, and efforts to clarify Privacy Act concerns.

Applying jurisprudence on representativeness and the sheriff’s duty of reasonable diligence under the Juries Act, the court held that reasonable efforts had been made despite continued refusals by some band councils to provide lists.

The accused failed to establish partiality or misconduct by the sheriff.