Allison D. Dellandrea

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm under section 272(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The case centered on whether consent to sexual activity can be vitiated through fraud in the context of online deception.

The accused used an elaborate Craigslist scheme, posing as a spa owner and creating fictional personas to deceive two women into believing they were engaging in sexual activity with high-end business clients in exchange for substantial payment.

In reality, the accused was the "client" and had no intention of paying.

The Crown alleged that the accused exceeded the boundaries of any consent given and engaged in aggressive breast-sucking and forced fellatio.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming all sexual conduct was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to one complainant and guilty of the included offence of sexual assault in relation to the other, based on evidence of non-consent and the complainants' withdrawal of consent during sexual activity.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offences spanned approximately nine years and were committed against his biological daughter and step-daughter, with whom he held positions of trust and authority.

The abuse of the biological daughter occurred over an eight-year period between 1997 and 2004, involving progressively intrusive sexual acts including digital penetration, oral-genital contact, and partial vaginal penetration.

The abuse of the step-daughter occurred over a seven-month period in 2007-2008, involving sexual touching and exposure.

The court imposed a sentence of 56 months imprisonment (40 months for the abuse of the biological daughter and 16 months consecutive for the abuse of the step-daughter), along with ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender information registration order, DNA order, and ten-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with possession of two controlled substances (cocaine and oxycodone) and failing to comply with the terms of his recognizance.

Following a high-speed pursuit and traffic stop, police observed a baggie of cocaine in the accused's waistband and arrested him.

A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed oxycodone pills.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable grounds, but determined there was a breach of the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) regarding the delay in providing rights to counsel.

The cocaine and health card were admitted as evidence, but the oxycodone was excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine and failing to comply with recognizance, but acquitted of the second possession charge.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of mischief.

The charges arose from an incident at the accused's family home where he allegedly attacked his son with a machete and a metal bat following a dispute over a basketball net.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and two counts of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, but acquitted him of mischief.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding that the accused's response was disproportionate to any perceived threat.