Case information

Criminal law — Trial — Sentencing — Appeal allowed on the dangerous offender designation — Long-term offender designation substituted by Court of Appeal — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reviewing the trial judge’s jury charge — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by substituting a long-term offender designation rather than ordering a new hearing on that issue.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

There was a shooting in Toronto. The video from the surveillance camera showed a man running past two people sitting on a bench, followed by the shooter who was firing in the direction of the running man. The main Crown witness was the applicant’s friend. The police located the gun used in the shooting in the friend’s bedroom. The jury convicted the applicant of the firearms offences arising from the shooting. However, the jury acquitted the applicant of a charge of attempted murder. Subsequent to the jury’s findings, the trial judge conducted a judge alone trial on three counts of breaches of weapons prohibition orders, as had been earlier agreed. The judge entered convictions on each of those counts. The applicant was designated as a dangerous offender, given an overall 11 year determinate sentence, and was placed on a long-term supervision order for 10 years. The conviction appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was dismissed. The appeal on the dangerous offender designation was allowed, that designation was set aside, and a long-term offender designation was substituted. The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the 11-year determinate sentence or the 10-year long-term supervision order.