Alan Bruce Richter

In a criminal trial for second-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit an unavailable witness's prior police statements for their truth.

Necessity was conceded, but the motion turned on threshold reliability under the principled hearsay exception.

The court held that the earlier audio statements lacked adequate procedural safeguards and that the later video statement, considered as a whole, was not so reliable that contemporaneous cross-examination would add little or nothing.

The court rejected the Crown's attempt to sever and admit only corroborated portions of the statement and dismissed the hearsay application.

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.

The accused, an educational aide, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a 12-year-old student.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and contrived, noting significant inconsistencies regarding the location, timing, and circumstances of the alleged offences, as well as the complainant's history of behavioural challenges and deceitfulness.

The court accepted the accused's denial of wrongdoing as credible and acquitted her of all charges.

The accused, a former elite hockey coach, was charged with historical sexual offences against a former player who was 14 to 16 years old at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's categorical denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation, as he was in a position of trust.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual assault for the period after the complainant turned 16, as the Crown failed to prove he actively induced her to engage in sexual activity.

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 accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his mother.

The court previously found that the accused committed the act that caused her death.

The Crown sought to prove that the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Based on uncontested expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was experiencing Capgras delusions and command hallucinations at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

The appellant, convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 14-year-old complainant, applied for bail pending his summary conviction appeal.

The court applied the criteria for bail pending appeal, finding that while the appeal grounds were weak, they were not frivolous.

The court further held that the appellant's detention was not necessary in the public interest, noting his low-moderate risk of re-offence and his compliance with previous release conditions.

Bail pending appeal was granted on strict terms, including a surety.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an encounter at a wedding reception, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to conflicting evidence about consensual sexual activity, alleged slapping, alleged choking, and alleged sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court rejected the accused's evidence but found it did not raise the matter because the Crown still failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence accepted.

The complainant was found generally credible, but the court identified significant frailties and inconsistencies in her recall, particularly concerning chronology, consent to oral sex, and the alleged injuries.

The court also found the corroborative medical and lay evidence insufficiently reliable to establish the alleged injuries or the alleged choking and sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

All counts were dismissed and an acquittal entered.

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 applicant, charged with sexual assault and related offences, applied for certiorari to quash a DNA warrant issued under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the affiant's evidence regarding the complainant's identification of him from wedding photographs and social media was speculative and tainted.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient credible evidence, including the complainant's identification and the presence of male DNA on her underwear, to form reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offences and that his DNA would provide evidence.

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.