Adrian Robert Cleaver

This decision addresses the sentencing of J.P., a 31-year-old man convicted of sexual interference with a vulnerable 14-year-old Indigenous, Autistic girl under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and Xanax (which he supplied).

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal and substance abuse history, the victim's vulnerability, and relevant sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

The judge imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, a ten-year firearm prohibition, DNA order, and multiple lifetime prohibitions related to contact and employment involving minors.

The decision also discusses the application of the "mistake of age" defence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing sexual offences against children.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted J.P. of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 14-year-old complainant, KJ.

The accused was found not guilty of administering a noxious substance.

The case involved complex issues of consent, intoxication, and mistake of age.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, including the complainant, her mother, friends, and the accused.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the judge found her credible on the key issue of non-consent.

The accused’s claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent and age was rejected due to recklessness in failing to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

The court also held that the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent.

The accused’s failure to ensure explicit consent to sexual intercourse was critical to the conviction.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol level.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption and, alternatively, de facto care or control.

The court found that the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption by demonstrating she did not intend to set the vehicle in motion and had a concrete plan for her husband to pick her up.

Considering the factors for realistic risk of danger, the court found no such risk and acquitted the accused.

This is a sentencing decision for N.L., who was found guilty of sexual assault and mischief to property against his intimate partner, K.L. The court considered aggravating factors including the intimate partner relationship, breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability due to injury, premeditation evidenced by vile text messages, and the accused's misogynistic attitudes and lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of prior record and good work ethic.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the high moral culpability and severe, long-lasting harm to the victim.

The judge imposed a custodial sentence, a probation order, a no-contact order, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition.

This criminal trial concerned Matthew Miller, who was charged with assaulting Ryan James Taylor and breaching an undertaking to Karen Venasse.

A charge of uttering a threat was withdrawn mid-trial.

The incident, a physical altercation at a gas station, stemmed from a history of animosity and a family court dispute between Miller and Venasse, who is the ex-partner of Miller and current partner of Taylor.

The court heavily relied on video surveillance footage, which contradicted the testimonies of both the complainant and the accused regarding the initiation of the physical altercation.

The judge found the testimonies of the accused and complainants largely incredible, except where corroborated by the objective video evidence.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and assessing the circumstantial evidence holistically, the court concluded that Miller intentionally planned and executed the assault on Taylor.

Matthew Miller was found guilty of assaulting Ryan James Taylor and breaching an undertaking.

The accused, NL, was charged with sexual assault and mischief against his estranged wife, KL.

The incidents occurred in the matrimonial home following a period of marital discord and separation.

KL alleged that NL sexually assaulted her by physically restraining her, attempting to kiss her, grabbing her breasts and buttocks, and exposing himself while demanding sexual acts.

She also alleged that NL intentionally damaged property in the basement by urinating, spilling beer, and smearing applesauce.

NL denied the allegations, claiming a conspiracy between KL and the investigating officer.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis, finding NL's testimony incredible due to numerous inconsistencies and lies, including his false claims about the wedding rings and the property damage.

The court found KL's testimony credible and reliable, noting her initial reluctance to lay charges and her uninformed understanding of sexual assault law.

NL was found guilty on both counts.

T.S. was found guilty of sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) following a two-day trial.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, which involved non-consensual vaginal penetration and a betrayal of trust with a long-standing friend, and the significant impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included T.S. being a first-time offender, suffering from ADHD and likely other cognitive deficiencies, and having family support.

Aggravating factors were the betrayal of trust and the profound victim impact.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and deterrence, and guided by the three-year starting point for forced penetration sexual assaults articulated in R. v. A.J.K., the court imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence, finding no "highly mitigating factor" to warrant a lesser sentence despite T.S.'s cognitive challenges.

Ancillary orders were also made.

The accused, a 38-year-old Canadian military member, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, noting the small collection size but also the accused's habit of deleting material, suggesting a higher volume of access.

Aggravating factors included the depraved nature of the material and the accused's admitted breaches of release conditions.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, low risk of re-offence, a difficult childhood, and strong family support.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing principles for child pornography offences, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant a conditional sentence.

A nine-month custodial sentence was imposed, along with an 18-month probation order, DNA order, 20-year SOIRA registration, a 10-year Section 161 order (with specific terms regarding internet use and contact with persons under 16, but no park/playground prohibition), and an order of forfeiture for seized items.

The accused, T.S., was charged with sexual assault.

The case involved conflicting accounts of a sexual encounter between T.S. and the complainant, R.G., who were long-time friends.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, applying the W.(D.) analysis.

The complainant testified that initial sexual activity was consensual but explicit consent was revoked when the accused attempted penile penetration.

The accused maintained all activity was consensual.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible, particularly her clear communication of "No" regarding penile penetration, which the accused ignored.

The court rejected the accused's evidence and found him guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant, C.M., was charged with forcible confinement and two counts of assault by choking.

The Crown did not proceed with the forcible confinement charge.

The case involved assessing credibility, applying W.(D.) principles, and discussing elements of assault by choking (s. 267(c) Criminal Code), defence of property (s. 35 Criminal Code), and the de minimus non curat lex defence in a domestic violence context.

The court found C.M. not guilty of assault by choking but guilty of common assault for the first incident on the stairway, rejecting the de minimus defence due to the domestic violence context and the child witness.

For the second incident in the bedroom, the court found C.M.'s actions were justified under the defence of property, leading to an acquittal on the second assault by choking charge.

Joseph Couvieau was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of failing to comply with a probation order, stemming from domestic violence incidents.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with prior domestic assaults and breaches of probation, and mitigating factors such as employment and support for his father.

Denunciation and specific deterrence were the controlling sentencing principles.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months' incarceration, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused, a 57-year-old retired Master Warrant Officer of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to sexual touching of his 14-year-old step-granddaughter contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved digital penetration and occurred during a snow day at the accused's residence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and a five-year section 161 order.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the breach of trust against the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and positive sexual behaviour assessment indicating low risk of reoffence.

The accused pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A sentencing hearing was held to determine the number of plants produced, as this affects the applicable minimum sentence.

The Crown sought a one-year minimum sentence based on production of more than 200 plants.

The central issue was whether cannabis clones (cuttings) without visible root systems constitute "plants" under the legislation.

The court adopted a definition based on cultivation or propagation activity rather than the presence of roots, finding that over 450 plants were being grown and imposing the mandatory minimum sentence.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and with breaching a probation order by failing to keep the peace and be of good character.

The Crown alleged the accused assaulted the complainant on April 11, 2013.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and consistent, while the Crown's witnesses demonstrated signs of collusion in their statements to police.

The assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused guilty of breaching his probation order by committing mischief under section 430 of the Criminal Code when he deliberately knocked the complainant's coffee out of her hand or off the armrest of the couch.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and a Centre of Forensic Sciences report on a urine sample.

The court found that while the accused's performance on physical coordination tests and the presence of multiple drugs in his urine were consistent with impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired at the time of the incident.

The lack of expert evidence regarding the specific effects of the detected drugs, the absence of evidence of impaired driving, and the accused's extreme fatigue as an alternative explanation for poor test performance created reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.