Alison Craig

The offender was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, and multiple violent offences including assault, forcible confinement, choking, and sexual assault against an 18-year-old victim.

The offender controlled the victim's sex work, took her earnings, and subjected her to severe physical and psychological abuse over a year.

The court considered the Tang/Miller factors for human trafficking and the offender's background.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 11 years imprisonment, including 9 years for human trafficking and 2 years consecutive for choking, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought to admit a KGB statement from an alleged victim of human trafficking who had disappeared and was unavailable to testify.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed threshold reliability.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding that the inability to cross-examine the declarant was a significant obstacle, particularly given her potential motive to fabricate, as she gave the statement while under arrest and her charges were dropped immediately afterward.

The court also found the corroborative evidence insufficient to establish substantive reliability.

The offender was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, hydromorphone, and oxycodone, as well as possession of a prohibited weapon and proceeds of crime.

The court found that despite Charter breaches during the arrest, the evidence was admissible.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was found to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain, not an addict-trafficker.

Taking into account the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the pandemic, the court imposed a global sentence of 5 years, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation against the offender for historical sexual offences committed against his children.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence indicating the offender had pedohebephilia and a moderate risk of sexual recidivism, but found he did not meet the criteria for a dangerous offender as his conduct was not intractable and the risk would decline with age.

The court instead designated him a long-term offender, imposing a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment (with credit for pre-trial custody leaving 6 months and 1 day to serve) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a forensic search of their cellphones.

They argued the Information to Obtain lacked reasonable grounds and the police failed to file a report to justice regarding the data analysis.

The court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant and upheld the validity of the warrant despite minor misstatements.

Although the court found a section 8 Charter breach due to the failure to file a report to justice for the data analysis, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) as the breach was minor and technical.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including break and enter, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm, following a home invasion where the homeowner was shot.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data, DNA found on a marijuana roach at the scene, and eyewitness identification.

The court found the eyewitness identification to be general and weakened by the witness's inability to identify the accused in a photo lineup.

Furthermore, the court accepted a plausible alternative theory for the presence of the accused's DNA at the scene.

Concluding that the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the accused not guilty.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, applied to vary his bail conditions to allow him to leave his residence without his surety.

He had been on strict house arrest for seven months without any breaches, despite 50 police compliance checks.

The court considered the accused's lengthy criminal record and the serious nature of the charges, but found that his unblemished compliance and the delayed trial date justified a modest loosening of his conditions.

The application was granted, and the release order was amended to permit the accused to leave the residence on specific days with his surety's written permission.

The accused was charged with two separate counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit confessions obtained during a lengthy undercover 'Mr. Big' operation.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart, assessing the threshold reliability of the confessions against their prejudicial effect.

The court found the confessions to be highly detailed, internally consistent, and corroborated by holdback evidence, establishing strong probative value.

The moral prejudice arising from the accused's involvement in the simulated criminal organization was deemed mitigable through editing and jury instructions.

The confessions were ruled admissible.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and indignity to a dead body, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence seized from his apartment during warranted searches, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The police had initially made a warrantless entry into the accused's apartment under exigent circumstances after discovering a dismembered body nearby.

The court found that while looking through the mail slot and failing to provide the right to counsel upon initial detention violated the Charter, the warrantless entry itself was justified under s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2), as the police acted in good faith, the impact on protected interests was minimal due to discoverability, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on the merits was high.

The application was dismissed.

In a pre-trial ruling for a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied to exclude security video surveillance recordings obtained by police from the common areas of his apartment building.

The accused argued the warrantless seizure violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the 246-unit building.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the case.

The offender was convicted of breaching his Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by consuming alcohol and cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought a non-carceral sentence.

The court noted the offender's significant rehabilitation efforts, including maintaining steady employment, establishing a stable family life, and avoiding violent behaviour for over a decade.

Applying the principles from R. v. Ipeelee, the court found that a further prison term would be detrimental to the offender's rehabilitation and that he did not pose a current danger to the community.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.