Alan Sobcuff

The accused was convicted of kidnapping with a firearm, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm.

The offences involved the abduction of a lone female victim from a public parking lot at gunpoint, her transportation and confinement in a vehicle for hours, forced sexual assault at gunpoint, and her subsequent torture at a residential location.

A firearm was discharged at a Good Samaritan attempting to assist the victim.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years for kidnapping with a firearm, less three years pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in 10 years remaining custody.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts.

The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, the planning involved, the use of firearms, and the profound psychological and physical impact on the victim.

This decision involves Keyron Moore charged with multiple offences including kidnapping, sexual assault, and firearm-related offences.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, and after hearing extensive evidence including the complainant A.T.'s testimony, Mr. Moore's testimony, forensic evidence, and phone extraction reports, the court dismissed two counts due to no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The judge found Mr. Moore to be an active participant in a real and violent kidnapping and sexual assault, rejecting his claim of a fake kidnapping and consensual sexual activity.

The court relied heavily on the complainant's credible testimony, forensic evidence linking Mr. Moore to duct tape used in the offence, and phone communications indicating his involvement.

Mr. Moore was convicted on five counts and acquitted on one.

This decision addresses the criminal liability of Shawn Collinge on three counts of child luring under the Criminal Code.

The Court considered two key issues: whether it matters if Collinge was unknowingly communicating with a third party rather than the alleged minor, H.O., and whether Collinge had the requisite mens rea regarding H.O.'s age.

The Court held that liability depends on who the accused believed he was communicating with, not the actual recipient, and found that Collinge knew and believed H.O. was 14 years old.

The Court rejected Collinge's claim that he believed H.O. was over 18, finding his evidence not credible.

Collinge was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, C.N., was sentenced for three counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching involving his half-sister, DT, who was between 8 and 10 years old at the time of the offences.

He also pled guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's young age, abuse of trust and authority, degree of physical interference, duration and frequency of offences, location (victim's home), persistence, and grooming.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, a difficult childhood, and efforts to address mental health and substance use post-offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, guided by R. v. Friesen, and imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 7.5 years.

The defendants, Andre Pyne and Sadri Zorjani, brought applications under sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence, with Mr. Zorjani also seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The court dismissed all applications, finding that police had reasonable grounds for arrest, there was no section 10(a) breach, and while a serious section 10(b) breach occurred due to delayed access to counsel, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as it was independently discovered and the breach was not deliberate or systemic.

The court also found that the high public interest in prosecuting gun crimes weighed against exclusion.

The accused, Luke Eastman, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 1133 days, exceeding the 18-month (547-day) presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence, including a change of counsel, failure to conduct pre-trials, and lack of proactive engagement in securing earlier trial dates or notifying the court of the s. 11(b) issue.

After deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay was 536 days, which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for two orders under the Criminal Code: to allow the complainant to testify outside the courtroom via closed-circuit television or Zoom, and to permit a court support dog to be present during her testimony.

The complainant, a victim of kidnapping, sexual assault, and torture, expressed significant anxiety about testifying in court.

The court granted both orders, finding that these testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account from the complainant and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice, balancing the truth-seeking function with the accused's right to a fair trial.

This is a sentencing decision for S.D.C., who was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference involving his 7-year-old daughter.

The sexual assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's young age, the offender's position of trust, and the victim's vulnerability, and mitigating factors such as the offender's work history and commitment to parenting.

Emphasizing the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen regarding the gravity of child sexual offences, the court rejected the defence's reliance on older precedents.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day of detention, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including DNA, firearms prohibition, non-communication, SOIRA registration, and a 5-year s. 161 prohibition.

J.B.P. was found guilty of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim (R.R.) aged 4-6.

The assaults included showing pornography, forced masturbation, and oral sex.

The Crown sought an 8-year global jail sentence, while the defence sought a 2-years-less-a-day conditional sentence, citing the offender's terminal liver disease.

The court considered the significant aggravating factors, including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, and repetition of offences, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time of the offences, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending due to health, and family support.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, which prioritizes denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, the court imposed a total sentence of four years imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate despite the offender's severe health issues and limited life expectancy.

The accused, S.D.C., was tried without a jury on one count of sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and one count of touching for a sexual purpose (s. 151 Criminal Code) involving his daughter, S. The case hinged on credibility assessments of the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found the accused's evidence illogical and not credible, rejecting his denial.

The complainant's evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and her being half-asleep, was found credible and reliable, corroborated by the accused's own statements.

The Crown proved the elements of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt on both counts.

The defendant, a taxi driver, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the defendant reached over and attempted to pull down the complainant's top while the taxi was stopped at a red light, after another cab driver from the same company appeared to take a photograph of the complainant.

The complainant and four passengers (her mother, grandmother, girlfriend, and friend) testified that the incident occurred.

The defendant denied the allegation, testifying that the complainant made a false accusation and that he apologized only to de-escalate the situation and remove the passengers from his vehicle.

The court found a reasonable doubt based on the fact that four witnesses did not observe the alleged touching, the defendant's credible testimony, and his contemporaneous request to police to review the taxi's video recording, which was not retrieved or presented as evidence.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation over 80 following an incident on September 28, 2016.

A civilian witness reported erratic driving to police.

The accused was stopped at his residence and arrested.

Breath tests conducted approximately 90 minutes after the incident showed readings of 135 mgs and 131 mgs.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, determined that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the evidence of impaired driving and the breath test results exceeding the legal limit.

The applicant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit.

He applied to stay the charges alleging a violation of his section 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from laying of charges to anticipated trial completion was 18 months and 27 days.

The court applied the new Jordan framework for determining unreasonable delay, finding that after deducting 39 days of defence delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive 18-month ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found the defence had not established meaningful and sustained steps to expedite proceedings, as counsel had repeatedly pursued a non-existent witness statement after the Crown and court were ready to set trial dates.

The application was dismissed and trial dates were upheld.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and voyeurism against two accused, M.S. and R.S., involving a child complainant, A.R. The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and key Crown witnesses, Q.W. and P.K., noting inconsistencies, exaggerations, and troubling explanations for delayed reporting.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt, concluding that the Crown's evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The three defendants were convicted of fraud over $5,000 for making fraudulent claims for statutory accident benefits after a motor vehicle accident in which they were not present.

All first-time offenders and immigrants from Haiti, two of whom are landed immigrants whose immigration status would be jeopardized by a sentence of six months or more.

The Crown sought a one-year jail sentence for each, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of less than six months.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including general deterrence and rehabilitation, and the mitigating factors of the offenders' difficult economic circumstances, lack of prior record, and their role as minor players in a scheme instigated by another individual.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of five months and 29 days of house arrest, followed by two years of probation, and 150 hours of community service for each defendant, with partial restitution of $1,000 from one defendant.

This sentence was chosen to avoid deportation and promote rehabilitation while still denouncing the conduct.

The accused were charged with fraud over $5,000 for making false claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown alleged they were not occupants of the vehicle.

The court found the accused's claims to be entirely dishonest and fraudulent, based on eyewitness testimony and inconsistencies in their statements and the driver's accident report.

The court concluded that the accused were not in the vehicle and that the Jevco Insurance Company was deprived of over $5,000 in each case.

All three accused were convicted of fraud over $5,000.

The accused was found guilty of four counts each of sexual interference and sexual assault of four nieces committed over a period of 3-4 years during their early and pre-teen years.

The offences involved multiple occasions of unwanted sexual touching, including digital penetration.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, along with a SOIRA Order for 10 years, a weapons prohibition order for 10 years, and a DNA sample requirement.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and deterrence principles, recognizing the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the profound psychological harm caused.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual interference and four counts of sexual assault against four sisters (his nieces) between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2010.

The complainants testified that the accused engaged in multiple sexual violations including digital penetration while they slept over at his apartment during their early and pre-teen years.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that his bedroom was locked and he had limited contact with the complainants.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, applying the appropriate standard for assessing child evidence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as contrived and self-serving.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit.

The accused was stopped as part of a mobile RIDE program, failed an approved screening device test, and was arrested.

The accused was transported to a police station where breath samples were provided approximately one hour and ten minutes after the initial stop.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the stop, the grounds for the approved screening device demand, and whether the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The accused abandoned Charter arguments at the close of the Crown's case.

The court found that the stop was lawful, the grounds for the approved screening device demand were established, and the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault for allegedly performing oral sex on the complainant without her consent while she was sleeping beside him in his residence on New Year's Eve.

The complainant testified she awoke to find the accused engaging in oral and digital sex with her and immediately left.

The accused claimed the complainant was awake and consented to the sexual contact.

The court found credibility issues on both sides, including inconsistencies in the complainant's post-incident communications and the accused's self-serving testimony.

Despite finding it probable the accused performed the acts without consent or was reckless, the court concluded there remained reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances, the level of awareness of the parties, and the question of consent, resulting in a dismissal of the charge.