Tim Kavanagh

The court sentenced Douglas Bowley for arson and uttering threats, following a finding of guilt for setting fire to a house he rented and threatening the owners.

The decision reviews the facts, Bowley’s mental health and addiction history, the impact on the victims, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 18 months for arson and concurrent 6-month sentences for uttering threats, followed by three years’ probation, emphasizing rehabilitation and the need for continued mental health support, rather than incarceration.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence obtained by police following a vehicle stop.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including an unlawful search of the vehicle without grounds (s. 8), unlawful detention and arrest of the passenger (s. 9), persistent questioning (s. 8), failure to provide rights to counsel upon initial arrest (s. 10(b)), and failure to file a report to a justice (s. 8).

The court determined that the police conduct, particularly the search without grounds, was a major departure from Charter standards and had a significant impact on the accused's rights.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court concluded that admitting the evidence, including a handgun and ammunition, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded it.

The offender, Mitchell O’Hanley, was convicted of dangerous driving and arson.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of prior record, employment, and efforts towards rehabilitation, against aggravating factors including the seriousness of arson, complete destruction of property, risk to neighbours and firefighters, and the dangerous driving incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for arson, imposing a 15-month imprisonment for arson and a $1,750 fine with a 30-day license suspension for dangerous driving, followed by 24 months probation.

A 16-year-old youth was found guilty after trial of aggravated assault as a party to the offence.

The victim, a 15-year-old, was viciously beaten by multiple youth, suffering a traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, brain bleed, vision loss, and permanent psychological effects.

The accused did not directly participate in the physical violence but actively encouraged and facilitated the assault through words, gestures, and conduct.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days (120 days open custody, 60 days community supervision) followed by 6 months' probation, rejecting both the Crown's request for 9 months' custody and the defence's request for probation or deferred custody.

The applicant, Darren John Pundyk, sought an order of certiorari to quash a committal order made by a preliminary inquiry judge, which required him to stand trial on charges of robbery with a handgun, possession of a break-in instrument, possession of a weapon for an indictable offence, and disguise with intent.

Pundyk argued that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by committing him despite an alleged absence of evidence on the essential element of identity.

The court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision, applying the "some evidence" test for committal based on circumstantial evidence.

The court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the applicant's identity as one of the robbers, and therefore, the preliminary inquiry judge did not act without jurisdiction.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against a victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, permanent vision loss, and severe psychological trauma.

The primary assailant inflicted repeated vicious kicks and blows to the victim's head and skull while the co-accused actively participated with strikes and taunts.

The assault was videotaped.

The court found both offences constituted violent offences under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and imposed custodial sentences with probation, finding that non-custodial alternatives were insufficient given the severity of the offence, the victims' catastrophic injuries, and the offenders' poor compliance history with previous non-custodial orders.