Alexandre Simard

The offender was found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer, possession of forged documents, and breach of probation after purchasing over 14,000 stolen credentials on the Genesis Market and possessing four fake IDs while on probation for similar offences.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the sophisticated and pernicious nature of cyber fraud and the offender's prior record for similar offences.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient to meet sentencing objectives, and imposed a total sentence of 23 months' imprisonment followed by two years' probation.

The accused, who was convicted following a French-language trial, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging violations of his language rights under section 14 of the Charter and sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the occasional use of English by the judge and prosecutor, the quality of the English-to-French interpretation, and the inclusion of English quotations in the written judgment infringed his rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the interpretation was of high quality, minor errors were corrected in real-time, and the accused's ability to understand the proceedings and make full answer and defence was not compromised.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving at 190 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, crossing the median, and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The collision resulted in the death of his passenger and bodily harm to the driver of the other vehicle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme speed and deliberate nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, an eight-year driving prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision on County Road 17 near Wendover, Ontario on October 9, 2022.

The collision resulted in the death of a passenger in the defendant's vehicle and injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle.

The Crown proved that the defendant was travelling at approximately 195 km/h in a posted 90 km/h zone when he lost control of his vehicle, crossed into the oncoming lane, and collided with an oncoming pickup truck.

The court found that the defendant's excessive speed constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, satisfying the mens rea requirement for both offences.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with three offences: fraudulently possessing computer passwords obtained from the Genesis Market (an online marketplace for stolen credentials obtained through malware), possessing four forged pieces of identification, and breaching a probation order prohibiting possession of identity documents not legally issued in his name.

The Crown proved that the accused controlled two Genesis Market accounts and purchased thousands of stolen credentials using cryptocurrency funded through a Coinbase account registered in his name.

Four forged driver's licenses bearing the accused's photograph but different names were found in his residence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts after determining that the electronic evidence from the Genesis Market database was authentic and reliable, that the accused controlled the relevant accounts, and that the forged identification documents were clearly counterfeit.

The court considered whether an ante mortem statement by Emma Roy, made to Christopher Prieur two days before her death in a car accident, was admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown sought to admit the statement to show prior discreditable conduct by the accused, Kyle Trepanier.

The court found that the statement did not meet the threshold reliability requirement, as the circumstances did not negate the possibility of untruthfulness or mistake.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with making an explosive substance, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 33 months and 22 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for the Superior Court.

After deducting defence-caused delay, the net delay remained above the ceiling.

However, the court found that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance that justified the delay, as it caused a seven-month suspension of court operations.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, detained for over six months without a judicial interim release hearing, sought a 90-day bail detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

Despite a lengthy criminal record and a history of breaching release orders, the accused had been accepted into a residential addiction treatment program.

The court applied the Antic-ladder principle and the Supreme Court's guidance in R. v. Myers, emphasizing that pre-trial detention is the exception and release is favoured.

Considering the significant time already spent in pre-trial custody and the structured nature of the proposed treatment program, the court found that the continued detention was no longer justified.

The accused was ordered released to the treatment facility under strict conditions.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, following an ATV crash.

The accused drove an ATV while impaired, with two passengers, resulting in the death of one passenger and serious injuries to the other.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victims, the accused's high moral blameworthiness, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation against mitigating factors including her youth, lack of prior record, and remorse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 66 months imprisonment, less 14 months credit for pre-sentence custody, and a 7-year driving prohibition.

The Crown brought a motion to admit a video-recorded statement made by the accused to police.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing the statement was involuntary and obtained in breach of his rights to silence and counsel under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused's jeopardy had not changed during the interview, so the right to counsel was not retriggered.

The court also held that the police officer's persistence in questioning did not overbear the accused's operating mind or right to choose whether to speak.

Despite a four-minute gap in the evidentiary record during the accused's transport to the station, the court concluded the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown's application was granted and the statement was ruled admissible.

The accused, J.R., faced 29 criminal counts, including assault, sexual assault, threats, confinement, and probation breaches, arising from a six-month relationship with the complainant, Ms. S. Four counts were withdrawn by the Crown.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of Ms. S's narrative, particularly given inconsistencies and her substance use.

The court dismissed several sexual assault and property interference counts due to lack of proof of bodily harm, intent, or factual inconsistencies.

However, the court found J.R. guilty on multiple counts of assault, sexual assault (where fear vitiated consent), confinement, threats, and breach of probation, accepting the core of Ms. S's testimony despite peripheral inconsistencies.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, driving over 80 causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following an ATV accident.

The accused drove an ATV not meant for passengers with two passengers, one without a helmet, after consuming alcohol.

The ATV crashed in a ditch, seriously injuring one passenger and causing the death of the other.

The court acquitted the accused of the over 80 charges due to evidence of bolus drinking raising a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused was impaired and that her series of negligent decisions constituted a marked and significant departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm and death, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death.

The accused, Barou Mbuyamba, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on tertiary grounds following an initial bail hearing.

The accused was charged with 69 counts related to importing and possessing firearms and prohibited devices.

The review considered whether there was an error of law or a material change in circumstances, specifically the introduction of an electronic monitoring plan and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the new electronic monitoring plan and the accused's 41 days in custody.

Applying a flexible approach to the Palmer test, the court reassessed the bail on secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the court found the proposed release plan, including a strong residential surety, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address tertiary ground concerns, and that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was released on a recognizance with conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice found the appellant guilty based on evidence from a police officer who observed the appellant driving at 130 km/h in a 100 km/h zone and using an electronic device.

The appellant testified he was holding a business card and that his cell phone was inoperable.

The appellate court found that the trial justice erred in applying the credibility assessment principles from R. v. W.(D.), applying a different standard to the appellant's testimony than to the officer's testimony, and effectively reversing the burden of proof.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.