Alison Elizabeth Craig

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, firearm offences, and drug trafficking following an unprovoked knife attack to collect a drug debt.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative potential and the mitigating impact of systemic anti-Black racism detailed in an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment.

The sentence was reduced by a 1.5:1 Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, a 6-month reduction for a Charter breach involving mistreatment by correctional officers, and a 1-year Duncan credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The remaining sentence to be served is 47 months and 28 days.

The applicant brought a motion before the Court of Appeal.

A non-publication order under s. 517 of the Criminal Code was imposed at the bail hearing below.

Because the decision contains information covered by that order, the Court directed that the decision will not be published online until the non-publication order ceases to be in effect, though a copy is available at the Registry.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and sexual services offences, brought a pre-trial motion for the disclosure of redacted portions of a complainant's police statement.

The Crown argued the redacted information, which related to an unrelated criminal investigation and the complainant's sexual history, was clearly irrelevant and raised privacy concerns.

The court applied the Stinchcombe framework, finding that the low threshold for relevance favoured disclosure and that the redacted portions were not clearly irrelevant to the defence.

The court also rejected the Crown's argument that the statement constituted a 'record' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code, concluding it was subject to the common law first-party disclosure regime.

The application for disclosure was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to breaching a boundary condition of his 10-year long-term supervision order.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, citing the offender's extensive criminal record and history of 14 prior breaches.

The court applied Gladue principles, noting the offender's significant childhood trauma, institutional abuse, and recent progress in Indigenous programming and addiction treatment.

Emphasizing the offender's rehabilitation efforts and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, the court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed two years of probation.

The offender was convicted of break and enter and armed robbery after a home invasion targeting a sex worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years and a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' imprisonment, granting 6.5 years of enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, leaving 6 months to serve.

The court found the offender met the criteria for an LTO designation due to a substantial risk of violent reoffending and a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community, imposing a 7-year long-term supervision order.

Gregory Dale Walton, a declared Dangerous Offender (DO) serving a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), pled guilty to breaching his LTSO by consuming illicit drugs.

The court considered the appropriate sentence length, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation principles, particularly in light of Mr. Walton's substance addiction and prior breaches.

The judge enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to reflect harsh lockdown conditions and lack of access to rehabilitative programs, ultimately imposing an 18-month sentence with credit for time served.

This decision involves the sentencing and long-term supervision order (LTSO) application for Gregory Lock, a repeat offender with a decades-long history of sexual offences against children, including possession and accessing of child pornography.

Despite a prior 10-year LTSO imposed in 2012, Mr. Lock repeatedly breached the order by possessing prohibited materials and devices, culminating in new convictions.

The Court imposed a new 10-year LTSO and a total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the penitentiary term to 5.5 years.

The ruling emphasizes the serious nature of child pornography offences, the offender’s high risk of recidivism, and the necessity of denunciatory and deterrent sentences to protect the public, especially children.

Ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and section 161 prohibitions were also imposed.

This decision addresses sentencing following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a tragic workplace drowning incident at New Leaf: Living and Learning Together Inc. The court found both the corporation and an individual supervisor, Colin Lang, guilty of multiple counts of failing to take reasonable precautions to protect worker safety.

The judgment carefully balances aggravating factors such as the death of a worker and recklessness, with mitigating factors including the defendants' community contributions and financial circumstances.

The court imposed substantial fines on New Leaf, mindful of its critical role and financial constraints, and a significant fine on Mr. Lang without incarceration, emphasizing proportionality and deterrence in OHSA sentencing.

The court sentenced Chawn Lemieux for second-degree murder following a public shooting in Ottawa.

The decision reviews the statutory and case law considerations for setting the period of parole ineligibility, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, jury recommendations, and victim impact statements.

After reviewing comparable case law, the court imposed a life sentence with 16 years of parole ineligibility, emphasizing the aggravating factors of public danger, prior record, and use of a firearm, while also considering Lemieux’s youth, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation.

This decision concerns an application by Martin Duah for a review of his detention under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the original justice erred in law, failed to provide sufficient reasons, and that there was a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the evidence, including new sureties and a revised release plan, but ultimately found the plan insufficient to address secondary ground concerns regarding public safety and supervision.

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered detained.

Following a trial, the offender, Alexander Barreira, was found guilty of possessing a firearm without a license, possessing a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences occurred after police executed a Feeney warrant at his residence, observing drug paraphernalia and a firearm in plain view, leading to a search warrant.

The offender admitted to dealing drugs for profit.

The Crown sought a global sentence of six years imprisonment, while the defence argued for a sentence of less than two years to be served in the community.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's dated but relevant criminal record, his extensive involvement in drug trafficking for profit, and mitigating factors including strong family support, expressed remorse, and significant pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 35 months imprisonment, comprising 24 months concurrent for the firearms offences and 11 months consecutive for the drug trafficking offence, after accounting for 19 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and 6 months credit for restrictive bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, victim surcharges, and forfeiture of offence-related property.

The accused, Dustin Moffatt, was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault stemming from a stabbing incident.

The case primarily hinged on the identity of the assailant, referred to as the 'Man in Black' (MIB), based largely on circumstantial and video evidence.

The court meticulously analyzed video footage and witness testimony, particularly focusing on the accused's location at the time of the incident and the movements of another individual, the 'Red Hat Man'.

The judge found that video evidence indicated the accused was unconscious and lying on the ground during the stabbings, and that the MIB was likely the 'Red Hat Man' who later rode away on the accused's bike.

This raised reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the assailant.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on both counts.

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.

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of three criminal trials (R. v. Q., R. v. D.O., R. v. J.N.) scheduled to commence in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton.

The trials were adjourned due to recent findings of contamination and ongoing assessment of the courthouse building, rendering it unsafe for in-person proceedings.

The court emphasized that the health and safety of all participants, including potential jurors, litigants, lawyers, accused persons, and witnesses, was the overarching priority, necessitating the extraordinary step of adjourning matters until further notice.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on multiple counts arising from exploitation of one complainant in the sex trade, including procuring, receiving a financial benefit from sexual services, human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from trafficking, assault, forcible confinement, choking, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and sexual assault.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable notwithstanding memory gaps associated with trauma, rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and unreliable, and applied the W.(D.) framework in assessing whether a reasonable doubt arose.

In interpreting the procuring and trafficking provisions, the court relied on appellate authority recognizing that control may be psychological, need not be constant or absolute, and may be inferred from directive behaviour, coercion, violence, financial control, and exploitation of vulnerability.

Counts relating to a second alleged victim were dismissed for insufficient evidence, and the withholding of documents count was dismissed at the Crown's request for lack of evidence.

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 appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, mischief, extortion, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and breach of probation.

He appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning post-offence emails and the testimony of a defence witness, which he claimed undermined trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the emails (as the overlooked email was not part of the evidentiary record) and no trial unfairness.

The court also found no misapprehension of the defence witness's evidence, as the trial judge's reasons reconciled it with the complainant's testimony.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal sentence was not granted.

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 accused, S.B.S., faced a 13-count indictment including human trafficking, procuring, assault, administering a noxious thing, and receiving material benefit.

The accused admitted to two assault charges (counts 6 and 11) and a related assault charge (count 10).

The Crown invited an acquittal on one charge (count 7).

The court found the Crown failed to prove human trafficking (counts 1, 8, 12) and procuring (counts 3, 4, 9, 13) beyond a reasonable doubt for all three complainants, largely due to inconsistencies in complainant testimony and lack of sufficient control exercised by the accused over the complainants' movements or sex trade work.

The court also dismissed charges of receiving material benefit related to exploitation and procuring.

The accused, Cadence Beauparlant, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence seized during and after his arrest, alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the police lacked objectively reasonable grounds for the initial arrest for "failure to remain at the scene of a collision" thus breaching sections 8 and 9.

However, the court found no breach of section 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, as the accused did not clearly invoke his right to counsel and police attempts to contact his family were reasonable.

Applying the Grant test for s. 24(2) exclusion, the court weighed the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct (found to be an understandable error in judgment, not flagrant misconduct), the impact on the accused's Charter interests (real but not most serious), and society's interest in adjudication on the merits (high, given the serious drug and weapon charges).

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.