T. Kent

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 accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, uttering threats, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a cellphone belonging to the accused found at the scene, and eyewitness identification by the complainant.

The court rejected the eyewitness identification as unreliable but found the accused's explanation for his cellphone being at the scene to be implausible.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found that the circumstantial evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the break and enter, robbery, and weapons charges.

The accused was acquitted of uttering threats due to insufficient evidence regarding which perpetrator made the threat.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, proposing two new sureties to replace the unsuitable one from the initial hearing.

The applicant was charged with robbery, intent to commit an indictable offence while masked, and failing to stop for police.

The court found that while the new sureties were an improvement, they did not constitute a material change in circumstances because they did not address the underlying reasons for detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds, specifically the applicant's history of robberies and the seriousness of the offences.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

The court determined costs following cross-motions arising years after a trial judgment that had found an enforceable agreement for the purchase and sale of shares.

The defendant had unsuccessfully brought a motion for directions and was found in contempt for attempting to alter the terms of the agreement previously confirmed by the court and upheld on appeal.

The successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on an unaccepted settlement offer and arguing that the defendant had unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court held that the defendant’s continued attempts to revisit the concluded issues and delay completion of the transaction warranted costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs of $12,650 inclusive of fees and disbursements were awarded and ordered deducted from funds payable under the original judgment.

The defendant brought a motion seeking directions for the completion of a share purchase and sale agreement that had been confirmed by a prior trial judgment.

The moving party sought directions regarding tax structure, adjustments related to a claimed capital gains exemption, interest, and other closing mechanics.

The responding parties opposed the motion on the basis that the court was functus officio and brought a cross-motion alleging contempt for failure to comply with the earlier judgment.

The court held that it lacked authority to provide further directions because the judgment had already finally determined the terms of the transaction.

However, the court found the moving party deliberately failed to comply with the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt and was in contempt.

Orders were made requiring completion of the share transfer and authorizing a representative of the successful parties to execute documents if the defendant failed to comply.