Amanda J. Camara

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm on November 1, 2011 and assault on November 9, 2017, both involving his wife.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of one year followed by two years probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offences, the accused's good character, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and collateral consequences warranted this disposition, which would not be contrary to the public interest.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement committed against the same victim on December 26, 2016 and January 1, 2017.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court imposed a blended sentence combining 90 days of intermittent imprisonment with a one-year conditional sentence, along with three years of probation.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentencing decision balanced the serious nature of the offences against significant mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, mental health diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitative potential.

The defendant pleaded guilty to distributing intimate images without consent and breaching an undertaking.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with nine months probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, including home confinement for three months, a curfew for three months thereafter, community service, and restrictions on internet use and possession of intimate images.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restorative justice principles, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and strong family support against the serious harm caused to the victim.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision on Highway 403.

The defendant, who was impaired with a blood alcohol concentration of 110 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, drove westbound in the eastbound lanes on two 400-series highways for several kilometres before colliding head-on with the victim's vehicle.

One person was killed and another seriously injured.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment for the death charge and two years concurrent for the bodily harm charge, along with an eight-year driving prohibition and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to his three-year-old son, who sustained a non-displaced spiral fracture of the left arm.

The Crown sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment; defence sought a conditional discharge, suspended sentence, or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months in the community followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement for the first three months, anger management programming, and restrictions on contact with the victim.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence against the offender's lack of prior record, genuine remorse, mental health challenges, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused, a Level 3 certified figure skating coach with 30 years of experience, was charged with five counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against three complainants: A.M., T.B., and K.M.T. The charges arose from allegations of inappropriate physical contact and comments made during figure skating instruction and coaching relationships spanning from 1996 to 2011.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in inappropriate touching of students' bodies during instruction, made inappropriate comments about their physical development, and engaged in grooming behavior.

The accused denied all charges, asserting that his physical contact with students was necessary and incidental to teaching figure skating skills, and that his comments were made in appropriate coaching contexts.

The trial involved six days of evidence and focused heavily on credibility assessments of the complainants, their parents, and the accused.

The accused was tried for three counts of robbery using a firearm and one count of breach of probation arising from a home invasion robbery.

The evidence established that the accused and an accomplice attended the victims’ apartment intending to steal property and assault the occupant, while another participant wielded a sawed‑off shotgun.

The court rejected the accused’s claim that he was unaware of the firearm and accepted evidence from multiple witnesses that the firearm had been displayed and discussed beforehand.

Applying party liability under s. 21 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the accused knowingly participated in a common plan to commit a robbery in which a firearm would be used.

The accused was therefore convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm and breach of probation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving, unlawful possession of controlled substances, and driving while suspended.

The police stopped the accused based on a dispatch report of erratic driving, but the arresting officer did not observe erratic driving.

The officer arrested the accused for impaired driving based on red eyes, an odour of alcohol, and a fumbled wallet, without using an approved screening device.

Breath tests showed alcohol levels well below the legal limit.

A subsequent drug evaluation led to a urine demand.

The court found the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, and excluded the drug and urine evidence under s. 24(2).

Even if the evidence were admitted, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to ten offences including possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of prohibited devices, assault, mischief, theft under $5,000, refuse breath demand, fail to attend court, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence for the firearms offence, which carried a mandatory minimum at the time of the offences.

However, the Court of Appeal decisions in R. v. Nur and R. v. Smickle, released one day before trial, declared the mandatory minimum unconstitutional.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months plus 11 months pretrial custody credit, followed by three years probation, finding the offender's firearm possession fell closer to the regulatory end of the spectrum despite aggravating factors related to his alcohol addiction and domestic violence.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from two separate incidents: prowling and voyeurism on March 17, 2011, and breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence on March 20, 2010.

The defence raised the issue of non-insane automatism due to sleepwalking, supported by expert psychiatric evidence regarding the effects of the medication Zopiclone.

The court found the accused guilty of prowling on March 17, 2011, but not criminally responsible for the offences on March 20, 2010, due to mental disorder automatism.

The court applied the holistic approach established in R. v. Stone, considering the continuing danger to the public and the medical evidence regarding the accused's condition.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing his wife to death and nearly decapitating her.

The court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The court rejected the accused's claims of profound depression and PTSD, finding him manipulative and lacking remorse.

Considering the brutal nature of the domestic homicide, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court set parole ineligibility at 15 years.

In a murder trial, the accused sought a mistrial after the Crown’s opening address allegedly contained argument, rhetorical flourishes, and repetitive descriptions of the deceased’s injuries that were said to be inflammatory and prejudicial.

The court acknowledged that portions of the Crown’s opening exceeded the proper limits of a neutral overview and included some inappropriate commentary.

However, applying established principles governing mistrials, the court held that the improprieties were not so prejudicial that a jury would be incapable of disregarding them.

The court emphasized that mistrials are remedies of last resort and that juries are presumed to follow judicial instructions.

A corrective instruction to the jury was therefore sufficient to cure any potential prejudice.

In a murder trial where the accused admitted to cutting his wife's throat, the Crown sought to adduce a graphic autopsy photograph of the wound to assist the jury in determining the accused's intent.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing the photograph was highly prejudicial and had minimal probative value.

The court found that the photograph had considerable probative value in illustrating the force required to inflict the injury, which was central to the issue of intent.

The court concluded that the probative value outweighed any potential prejudicial effect and ruled the photograph admissible.

The accused, charged with second degree murder of his wife, sought to exclude statements made to police on the basis that they were involuntary and obtained in breach of his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The accused argued that the police failed to provide a Dari interpreter promptly, delaying his ability to consult counsel.

The court found the statements voluntary despite a recording failure, as the officers' notes and an interpreter's statement provided a sufficient record.

The court also dismissed the Charter applications, finding the accused understood the reason for his arrest and his right to counsel in Hindi, and that the delay in securing a Dari interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple child pornography offences including possession, making child pornography available, and accessing child pornography through a peer‑to‑peer file‑sharing network.

Police investigators directly connected to the accused’s computer through the LimeWire/Gnutella network and downloaded files while the accused’s system was actively downloading and sharing illicit material.

A search of the accused’s residence revealed thousands of images and videos stored on a computer tower, laptop, and disks accumulated over several years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives for internet‑based child pornography offences, particularly where the offender disseminates material to others online.

Considering the scale of the collection, the dissemination of files, and the lack of remorse or evidence of treatment prospects, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence with concurrent terms and ancillary orders.

Criminal trial concerning child pornography offences arising from peer to peer LimeWire activity, forensic examination of seized computer equipment, and storage of files on compact disks.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework, rejected the accused’s explanations involving hackers, viruses, and unauthorized access, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly possessed, accessed, and made child pornography available through the shared folder of his file sharing program.

The court accepted expert evidence linking the monitored IP address and GUID to the seized laptop and inferentially found deliberate downloading and movement of files to disks.

On the making count, however, the court adopted the reasoning that copying pre-existing child pornography onto disks for personal collection did not constitute “making” under s. 163.1(2).

During a criminal trial for multiple child pornography offences, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in Internet-based child pornography investigations and peer‑to‑peer file sharing networks.

The defence objected on the basis that the officer’s role in the investigation created an appearance of bias and partiality.

Applying the expert evidence framework in Mohan and the gatekeeping analysis discussed in Abbey and Van Bree, the court conducted a cost‑benefit assessment of the proposed opinion evidence.

The court held that the witness’s expertise, reliability, and the necessity of the evidence to understand LimeWire peer‑to‑peer technology outweighed any potential prejudice arising from his investigative role.

The officer was therefore permitted to testify as an expert on the operation of peer‑to‑peer file sharing systems.

On an application in a child pornography prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of statements made during the execution of a residential search warrant, during booking, and in a later videotaped interview, as well as exclusion of CDs, DVDs, and derivative data.

The court held the warrant was not overly broad and validly authorized seizure of computer media, including CDs and DVDs, in the circumstances of an internet file-sharing investigation.

However, the police breached s. 10(b) by eliciting a statement about CDs without properly implementing the right to counsel, by failing to hold off during booking after the accused said he did not wish to speak to a lawyer “at the moment,” and by failing to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel when the accused’s jeopardy materially increased at the videotaped interview.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court excluded those statements but admitted the initial spontaneous utterance and the physical media evidence.

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint against several corporate respondents and two locals of the Carpenters' Union.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike portions of the related employer application for lack of particulars.

The Board found that the applicant lacked status to challenge the Carpenters' bargaining rights because it did not hold pre-existing bargaining rights for the employees in question, and that it had delayed in bringing the complaint.

The Board struck those portions of the complaint.

However, the Board declined to strike the related employer application, finding the pleadings sufficiently particularized given the nature of such applications where facts lie within the exclusive knowledge of the respondents.

The applicant Carpenters' union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on a water pollution control centre project.

The work had been assigned by the subcontractor to members of the Labourers' union.

The Carpenters argued this violated a prior 'Peace Treaty' and section 162 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the Labourers' Provincial ICI agreement validly covered construction labourers performing carpentry work, and that the employer's practice and collective agreement obligations strongly favoured the assignment to the Labourers.

The Board confirmed the employer's work assignment.