Alexandra Mamo

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sanction for Dylan Larios-Bonilla, a registered massage therapist found guilty of sexual assault involving a patient.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust as a healthcare provider and the victim's vulnerability, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of prior record, positive rehabilitative prospects, and community support.

The court analyzed relevant case law and principles, particularly the availability and appropriateness of a conditional sentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, a 15-month strict conditional sentence, a 2-year probation order, a DNA order, and a 10-year SOIRA order were imposed, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Superior Court of Justice sentenced two offenders, Ryan Daigneault and Daniel Bell, who pleaded guilty to transferring a handgun and two counts of cocaine trafficking.

Daigneault, identified as the president of the London chapter of the Outlaws motorcycle club, played a primary role in negotiations, while Bell acted as a courier.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for drug and firearm offenses, particularly given the involvement of a criminal organization.

Daigneault received a total sentence of nine years, reflecting his leadership role, extensive criminal record, and the significant quantities of drugs and firearms involved, with credits applied for pre-trial detention and strict bail conditions.

Bell, a first-time offender with a secondary role, received a five-year sentence in accordance with a joint submission from the Crown and defence, with the court applying principles of restraint and totality.

Both offenders were subject to secondary DNA orders and 10-year weapons prohibitions.

The defendant, a registered massage therapist, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that during a massage session for lower back pain, the defendant engaged in non-consensual touching of her buttocks, exposed himself, and ejaculated on her leg.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the defendant's inconsistent and implausible explanations for his actions and the state of his clothing.

The court concluded that the defendant's conduct, including unzipping his pants and placing his hand on his penis while massaging the complainant's buttocks, demonstrated a sexual purpose.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault.

Alexander Clarke pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence.

This was his eighth robbery conviction, committed while on parole for previous robberies.

The Crown sought a long-term offender designation and a 10-year sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO).

Defence counsel agreed to the long-term offender designation but sought a 6.5-8 year sentence and a 3-5 year LTSO.

The court found Clarke to be a long-term offender, applying the "step principle" for repeat offenders, and sentenced him to a total of nine years imprisonment (with 56.25 months credit for presentence custody) and an eight-year LTSO.

The court emphasized the need for specific deterrence and public protection, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts at rehabilitation and expressing hope for his future.

The defendant, Abad Abdi Shire, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which can range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 18-20 years, while the defence sought 12-14 years.

The court considered the egregious circumstances of the offence, including the frenzied and prolonged attack on a defenseless victim, evidence of planning, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's difficult childhood marked by poverty and bullying, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the aggravating circumstances strongly outweighed the mitigating ones and imposed a parole ineligibility period of 17 years.

Simon Ho-On was charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, administering a noxious thing, and unlawful confinement involving a 16-year-old complainant, B.W. The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the two witnesses, B.W. and Mr. Ho-On, who provided conflicting accounts.

The court found B.W. to be a credible witness, but her memory was impaired regarding events at the condominium due to Xanax consumption.

Mr. Ho-On's testimony was rejected due to inconsistencies.

Consequently, Mr. Ho-On was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, but acquitted of sexual assault and administering a noxious thing related to the condominium incident.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to adduce evidence that his former co-accused had pled guilty to manslaughter in relation to the same killing.

The Crown opposed the admission of the plea, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially misleading.

The court held that the guilty plea was admissible as it had some relevance to the accused's credibility and defence that the co-accused was solely responsible.

However, the court ruled that the facts read in support of the co-accused's plea were inadmissible hearsay.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of graffiti found on the exterior walls of a building where a murder occurred.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude these writings from evidence, arguing they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

The Crown contended the writings were relevant to the accused's state of mind, either as a principal or an aider, by demonstrating animus towards the deceased or knowledge of a co-accused's intent.

The court found that the evidence, primarily a security camera video, was insufficient to connect the writings to the accused or his co-accused, rendering them logically irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if relevant, their probative value was extremely slight and significantly outweighed by the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, given their discreditable and potentially confusing nature.

The court excluded the evidence, noting the ruling was provisional and could be revisited if the evidentiary record changed.

The defendant, Simon Williams, faced charges of possessing child pornography.

He challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging violations of his section 8 Charter rights due to delayed filing of Reports to a Justice (RTJs) and misleading Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants.

The court found that the RTJs were filed "as soon as practicable" given the investigating officer's workload and travel, and that any delay was minor and did not warrant exclusion of evidence.

The court also affirmed the validity of the ITOs, finding no misleading omissions or impermissible speculative inferences regarding the defendant's propensity to collect child pornography.

Consequently, the defendant's Charter claims were dismissed, the evidence was admitted, and guilty verdicts were entered on both counts.

The accused, who held federal licences to cultivate marijuana, was charged with drug trafficking offences following a nine-month police investigation sparked by a confidential informant.

Police executed search warrants at the accused's home and licensed grow operation, seizing cannabis, controlled substances, and other evidence.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude the evidence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds to search those locations.

The court dismissed the application, finding the ITO established a credibly-based probability that evidence would be found at the locations based on surveillance, garbage pulls, and financial tracking.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault and other violent offences.

The court found the offender met the criteria for dangerous offender designation, including a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractable violent conduct, despite the offender's claims of willingness to engage in treatment.

However, the court declined to impose an indeterminate sentence, opting instead for a lengthy determinate sentence of 14 years (minus pre-trial custody) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding that external controls and potential future treatment could adequately manage the risk to public safety.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking a frail 61-year-old victim with a single punch, causing him to fall and suffer a fatal head injury.

The court weighed the offender's significant criminal record and the vulnerability of the victim against his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, granting 24 months of credit for pre-sentence custody, which included enhanced credit for harsh conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 5 years to serve.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun discovered during a traffic stop.

The police officer claimed the stop was for driving without headlights, but the court rejected this evidence, finding the officer conducted an unlawful investigative detention based on a mere hunch.

The court found violations of the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the handgun and the officer's testimony under s. 24(2), emphasizing the deliberate nature of the police misconduct and the need to dissociate the justice system from such Charter infringements.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, possession for the purpose of publication of child pornography, and sexual assault of a young child.

The offences occurred between May 7 and May 23, 2017.

The accused, who was the father of the victim, took photographs of his young son's genitalia and distributed them online.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration, a ten-year section 161 order, forfeiture of electronic devices, and a five-year firearms prohibition.

The court emphasized the serious breach of trust inherent in the offences and the vulnerability of the young victim.

The accused, Jaime Hodge, was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and the established sentencing range of three to five years for similar amounts.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, compliance with release terms, and a "horrific" background involving abuse and family trauma.

Aggravating factors included the sophisticated concealment and high purity of the cocaine.

The court gave limited weight to Gladue factors due to insufficient evidence of their contextual impact on the accused's moral culpability.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, with credit for one month of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 35 months, along with a 10-year and life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face a murder charge in Tennessee.

The respondent argued that his telephone confession to a US detective while he was in Canada constituted 'evidence gathered in Canada' under s. 32(2) of the Extradition Act, and should be excluded under the Charter.

The court held that evidence obtained by a foreign police officer via telephone from a person in Canada is gathered in the foreign jurisdiction, not in Canada.

The committal order was granted.

The accused, a 24-year-old Antiguan national, pled guilty to importing 4,322 grams of cocaine into Canada concealed in false-bottomed suitcases.

She travelled with her three-year-old daughter and co-accused Teesha Thomas, who was also carrying cocaine.

The accused was arrested at the border and has been in pre-trial detention since May 9, 2015.

The Crown sought seven years imprisonment; the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of 66 months (5.5 years) imprisonment, with credit for 223 days of pre-trial detention at an enhanced rate, resulting in a further 55 months to be served.

The court also imposed a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a $200 victim fine surcharge payable within two years.