Alan Bruce Richter

The applicant, Benjamin Charlton, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 16.5 months, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases established in R. v. Jordan.

The court applied the Jordan framework for cases below the ceiling, requiring the defence to show (1) sustained effort to expedite proceedings and (2) that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The court found the defence failed on both branches, particularly noting a four-month period of inaction regarding outstanding disclosure and rejecting the argument that the initial, earlier trial date should serve as the benchmark for reasonable time.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This judgment provides supplementary reasons for a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial involving charges of sexual assault and sexual touching.

The court found the complainant's account to be fabricated due to significant inconsistencies, the unlikelihood of the alleged events, and the complainant's documented mental health and behavioral issues.

The decision critically examines the police investigation, concluding it was not impartial or thorough, and highlights how the school board's directive hindered the disclosure of relevant evidence, thereby compromising investigative fairness.

The offender, L.R., was sentenced following convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving a 15-16 year old elite hockey player he coached between 2009 and 2010.

The Crown sought an 8-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 2-3 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse cases, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Friesen.

Aggravating factors included the significant age gap, abuse of a position of trust and vulnerability, multiple instances of sexual touching over an extended period, and the profound emotional trauma suffered by the victim.

Mitigating factors included L.R. being a first-time offender, having family support, and leading a pro-social life, along with the impact of stringent pre-sentence release conditions that prevented him from working.

The court imposed a global sentence of 57 months (4 years and 9 months) imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for each count, along with various ancillary orders including DNA, lifelong weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a Section 161 prohibition.

A young person, J.S., was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm after a single-vehicle rollover collision.

The court first addressed a Charter challenge regarding the admissibility of Airbag Control Module (ACM) data, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the limited data extracted, thus admitting it.

On the merits, the court found that while J.S. drove too fast for the conditions and made poor decisions (e.g., too many passengers, no seatbelts, alcohol), the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her driving constituted a "marked departure" from the standard of a reasonable driver.

This was due to significant uncertainties in interpreting the ACM data, the unknown impact of a faulty brake, and the unpredictable nature of the road and vehicle modifications.

J.S. was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, Michel Varalo, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual invitation involving an underage complainant.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant and her father, as the defendant did not testify.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, considering inconsistencies in her testimony and that of her father, as well as the context of her age and delayed disclosure.

The court found the complainant's testimony reliable and credible regarding the fundamental elements of the charges, leading to convictions on all three counts.

A conditional stay was entered on the sexual assault charge due to the Kienapple principle.

The offender was convicted of two counts of making written child pornography and two counts of making an arrangement to commit sexual offences under sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code.

The offences involved online communications with undercover police officers posing as mothers with young children.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 30 months imprisonment, comprising 18 months concurrent on counts 1 and 2, and 12 months consecutive on count 4.

The court rejected the offender's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence and declined to apply section 718.3(7) requiring consecutive sentences, finding that provision applies only to offences against real children.

Ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, and section 161 prohibition orders were imposed for life.

The defendant was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The offences arose from a street confrontation where the defendant stabbed one victim in the collarbone and slashed another with a knife.

The defendant claimed lawful self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, asserting she was protecting her boyfriend from an altercation with university wrestlers.

The court found the defendant's response was wholly disproportionate to the threat faced, driven by cocaine intoxication, and rejected the self-defence claim.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 21 months imprisonment emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence given the defendant's rehabilitation efforts and lack of criminal record.

The court imposed 12 months custody followed by two years probation, finding that while the defendant's post-offence rehabilitation was commendable, the serious nature of stabbing without legal justification required incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence principles.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault on Clayton Pye and assault with a weapon on Vladimir Kazbekov.

The defendant claimed she acted in lawful defence of Zachary Heyes during a physical altercation.

The court found that while the defendant's purpose in defending Heyes was clear and her belief that force was being used against him was reasonable, her response was wholly disproportionate to the threat faced.

The defendant used a knife to slash and stab the complainants when they were engaged in unarmed wrestling-style takedowns.

The court found the defendant's conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly given that no one was attempting to kill Heyes and that alternative means of intervention were available.

The defendant's intoxication from cocaine use was found to be the likely explanation for her over-reaction.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and exceed 80mgs following a police investigation on his driveway.

The defendant advanced Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of his detention and arrest.

The court found that the police officer had lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act and common law to detain the defendant on his driveway to check sobriety, and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired care or control but convicted of exceed 80mgs based on the breath samples.

The accused was charged with two counts of making written child pornography and two counts of making arrangements with another person to commit sexual offences against a four-year-old child.

The Crown's case involved an undercover police operation where the accused engaged in sexually explicit online communications with an undercover officer posing as a mother willing to facilitate child sexual abuse.

The accused discussed meeting the officer at a specific address and time to commit sexual offences against the child.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for the arrangement offence.

The court found that the accused intended to make an arrangement to commit sexual assault and sexual interference, and convicted on all counts.

Ganesh Persaud pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his estranged wife, Bodwatie Persaud, who he brutally murdered due to jealous suspicions.

Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 12 years.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding the increased parole ineligibility period warranted given the brutal nature of the domestic murder, breach of trust, and aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's age, health, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought four-year penitentiary sentences for both.

The sentencing judge found that Michael Hillier played the more significant role in the trafficking enterprise, which was motivated by a desire to support his partner's extended maternity leave.

Brittny Blain played a lesser role, primarily as a driver.

The judge imposed a two-year-less-a-day custodial sentence on Hillier followed by three years' probation, and a suspended sentence with three years' probation for Blain.

The decision emphasizes the importance of considering rehabilitation, restraint, and individualized proportionality in sentencing drug offenders, particularly those struggling with addiction.

The accused, a Registered Massage Therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against female clients at a spa.

The Crown proved that the accused deliberately touched the breasts of both complainants without consent during massage treatments, despite being trained in the requirement to obtain explicit consent for breast massage.

The accused claimed the contact was accidental and therapeutic in nature.

The court rejected this defence, finding the actions were deliberate, lacked any therapeutic justification, and had a sexual character.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice on March 8, 2016.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly assessed the circumstantial evidence and that no error in law or clear and palpable factual error was demonstrated.

The court held that the failure to articulate alternative factual scenarios in the reasons for judgment does not equate to a failure to consider them.

The reasons were found to be adequate as the judge reviewed the evidence and made the basis for his finding clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation with excessive blood-alcohol concentration, and dangerous driving arising from an incident where he grabbed the steering wheel of a vehicle being driven by his former partner, causing it to crash into a ditch.

The Crown's case was not disputed on the facts of impairment and dangerous operation.

The sole issue was whether the defence of necessity applied.

The accused claimed he grabbed the wheel to prevent the driver from deliberately causing an accident after she threatened to harm them both.

The court found an air of reality to the necessity defence and, applying the three-part test from R. v. Perka and R. v. Latimer, determined that the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not act out of necessity.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.