Amy M. Stevenson

The accused was sentenced following convictions on multiple counts including human trafficking and sexual assault.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2,155 days (5.9 years) less pre-sentence custody of 232.5 days, resulting in a net sentence of 1,922 days (approximately five-and-a-quarter years).

The court applied Downes and Duncan credit as mitigating factors, reducing what would have been a seven-year sentence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime Sex Offender Registry order, ten-year firearms prohibition, non-communication order, and forfeiture of a cellular telephone.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently based on the principle of totality.

The court sentenced Patrick Boyd Park for ten serious criminal offences, including sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes against four victims.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, the parties’ sentencing positions, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2,155 days (about 5.9 years), reduced for strict bail and harsh pretrial custody conditions, with all sentences to run concurrently.

This endorsement concerns a detention review hearing under section 525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, Loic Aurel Simeu, who sought release on bail pending the completion of his sentencing.

The court declined to release Mr. Simeu, finding his continued detention justified under section 515(10) CCC.

The decision was based on three factors: an unsatisfactory bail plan due to insufficient information about the proposed surety, the availability of alternative measures to address health and safety concerns in custody (e.g., transfer to another facility), and the assessment that there was no risk of the accused serving more pre-sentence custody than a fit sentence would entail, considering potential maximum credit and 'Duncan credit' for harsh conditions.

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.

The accused, an inmate and server in a detention facility, distributed a fentanyl/carfentanil mixture to other inmates, leading to the fatal overdose of one inmate and overdoses in others.

The accused was charged with trafficking and unlawful act manslaughter.

The defence argued that the accused acted as an 'agent for the purchaser' or 'co-purchaser' and that his actions were induced by duress from the inmate hierarchy.

For the manslaughter charge, the defence claimed a lack of factual or legal causation due to alleged intervening acts (suicide, correctional authorities' failure, additional drug intake, voluntary consumption).

The court found the accused guilty of trafficking, rejecting the 'agent for the purchaser' and duress defences, as his actions were voluntary and he had safe avenues of escape.

The court also found him guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, concluding his actions were a significant contributing cause of death, and rejected all alleged intervening acts.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct against the accused, K.A., in a human trafficking trial.

The evidence consisted of a photograph of ammunition with a threatening handwritten note and a video of K.A. firing a handgun at a shooting range, both extracted from his seized cellular telephone.

The Crown argued the evidence corroborated the complainant's testimony about K.A. possessing a gun and making threats.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the highly prejudicial effect of the evidence, which could lead the jury to infer guilt based on bad character or confuse the issues, substantially outweighed its limited probative value.

Brandon Clark pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown sought nine months imprisonment, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of 30 days intermittent imprisonment and a concurrent nine-month conditional sentence, along with a two-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives for drinking and driving offences, while also considering the offender's rehabilitation and the significant victim impact.

A young person, JD, pleaded guilty to sexual assault (youth charge) and assault (adult charge) against CD.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the Criminal Code.

Despite the severe psychological impact on the victim and the violent nature of the sexual assault, the court imposed a two-year probation for the youth sexual assault charge, and a conditional discharge with three years probation for the adult assault charge, rather than custody.

The decision was based on JD's low risk of reoffending, his rehabilitation efforts, and the YCJA's emphasis on the least restrictive measures, especially given that sentencing occurred after JD's 20th birthday, meaning any custodial sentence would be served in an adult facility.

This is a sentencing decision for two young men who pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred against Jewish and Black people, contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, by posting hateful and dehumanizing posters in public places.

The Crown sought imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the hate speech and its community impact, and mitigating factors, such as the offenders' youth, lack of prior record, guilty pleas, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community with strict conditions including home confinement, followed by two years of probation with community service and mandatory counselling, rejecting a conditional discharge or suspended sentence as insufficient.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her three-year-old son by striking him multiple times on the buttocks, causing extensive bruising, and grabbing him by the face while screaming at him.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a suspended sentence with three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge for three years with conditions including curfew, probation supervision, participation in counselling and anger management programs, and restrictions on contact with the child except as authorized by the Children's Aid Society or family court order.

The court also imposed ancillary orders for DNA collection and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The offender, H.A., was sentenced for multiple criminal offences, including possession of stolen property, disguise with intent, attempted robbery with an imitation firearm, and robbery with an imitation firearm.

These convictions stemmed from a trial for incidents in Burlington, Brampton, and Mississauga, and guilty pleas for a bank robbery in Sarnia.

The Sarnia offences were committed while the offender was on bail for the earlier charges.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the commission of offences while on bail, planning, the use of imitation firearms, and the impact on victims, including the confinement of bank employees and customers.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, early guilty pleas for the Sarnia charges, and substance abuse issues.

The court applied principles of individual deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and general deterrence, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment, with credit for presentence custody.

In a criminal trial for armed robbery, the Crown applied to cross-examine a key witness, A.M., at large, alleging hostility.

A.M. had admitted his involvement in the robbery but refused to identify the co-accused, H.A., or provide details of the event.

The court found A.M.'s testimony to be absurd, incredible, and cagey, demonstrating a clear reluctance to tell the whole truth despite being polite and respectful.

Applying common law principles, the court granted the Crown's application, allowing cross-examination at large to prod A.M.'s memory and address his disingenuousness, noting the high probative value of the accomplice's identity and the lack of prejudice to the accused.

James Anthony Scordino was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Angela Skorulski.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, firearm forfeiture, and primary DNA order.

The victim fine surcharge was waived.

The court acknowledged the brutal nature of the killing and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

The accused, James Anthony Scordino, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for leave to raise an alternate suspect defence at trial, alleging David Michael Hodgins was responsible for the killing.

The court applied the 'air of reality' test, requiring evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably acquit if accepted as true.

Despite Hodgins having a strong financial motive, the defence could not place him at the crime scene, nor was there forensic evidence implicating him.

The court found a complete absence of anything connecting Hodgins to the crime beyond motive, and therefore dismissed the application, prohibiting the defence from suggesting Hodgins killed or may have killed the victim at trial, subject to reconsideration if evidence warrants.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed driving erratically, failed a roadside screening device test, and provided breath samples showing 140 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath samples on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9.

The court found no breach regarding the screening device calibration or the vehicle inventory search, but acknowledged a breach of section 9 regarding the accused's continued detention.

However, the court admitted the breath evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the merits, the court found the accused guilty of operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit but acquitted on the impaired driving charge, finding insufficient evidence of actual impairment.

The Crown brought an application for production of joint counselling records between the accused and the complainant in a sexual assault case.

The application proceeded under the statutory regime in sections 278.1-278.9 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that the records were likely relevant to the central issue at trial, as they allegedly contained an admission by the accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity.

The court ordered production of the records to the judge for in camera review, and subsequently ordered production of redacted portions to counsel, with conditions to protect the privacy interests of the complainant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug on September 26, 2016 in Burlington.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, specifically cannabis.

The accused testified that he was not impaired.

The court found the accused guilty based on a constellation of objectively discernible facts including speeding, poor performance on drug recognition evaluation tests, bloodshot eyes, droopy eyelids, confusion regarding time and date, and toxicological evidence of cannabis and other drugs in his system.

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 accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 130 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged whether the breath tests were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The arresting officer transported the accused to a detachment in Port Credit rather than attempting to arrange testing at closer Halton Police Service stations.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tests were taken as soon as practicable and therefore could not rely on the presumption of identity.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences committed on July 2, 2015: assault with a weapon (metal pole), assault causing bodily harm, and threatening death.

The offences arose from a domestic violence incident involving the defendant and her former common-law partner.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought six to nine months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of one day imprisonment on the threatening death charge, combined with a six-month conditional sentence on the assault charges, followed by three years probation.

The sentence considered the defendant's lack of prior record, guilty plea, bail compliance, and rehabilitative efforts, balanced against the serious nature of the offences, their commission in the presence of children, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.