T. Fairchild

The court rendered a sentencing decision for Adrian Myles Puentes-Reed and Kalid Yousuf, who were found guilty of eight firearms, drug, and proceeds of crime offences.

The judge accepted the joint sentencing submission from counsel, imposing a nine-year penitentiary sentence for Puentes-Reed and an eight-year penitentiary sentence for Yousuf, less time served.

The decision emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence, acknowledging the severe societal harms caused by drug trafficking and the associated violence, while also considering the offenders' prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused, Adrian Myles Puentes-Reed and Kalid Yousuf, were jointly charged with multiple offences including possession of proceeds of crime, possession of cocaine and marijuana for trafficking, and various firearm offences.

They were found asleep in a "safe house" in Thunder Bay containing large amounts of cash, drugs, and firearms.

The defence argued lack of possession and knowledge, with Puentes-Reed claiming he was intoxicated and inadvertently brought to the residence.

The court rejected the defence's explanations, finding them incredible and inconsistent with documentary evidence and the nature of the "safe house" operation.

Both accused were found guilty on all remaining charges, as the Crown proved constructive possession and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice ruled on the admissibility of Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) evidence in a criminal trial where the evaluating officer's certification had lapsed due to COVID-19 by the time of giving evidence.

The court determined that while the statutory shortcut for DRE evidence admissibility under s. 320.31(5) of the Criminal Code did not apply, the evidence was admissible under the common law Mohan framework.

The judge found that the Crown met the criteria for expert evidence admission, considering the officer's training, prior certification at the time of the evaluation, and the specific reason for the lapse.

The accused, William Manroe, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, S.G., testified that she awoke to the accused sexually assaulting her after inviting him to sleep in her bed.

She attempted to stop the assault by turning away and later by masturbating him, but he persisted and eventually penetrated her.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual, initiated by the complainant.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it incredible and internally incompatible.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, concluding that she did not consent to any sexual activity.

The accused was found guilty.