Andrew Telford-Keogh

The defendant, Theodorus Deboer, pleaded guilty to mischief after evidence was led at trial regarding his participation in the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a conditional discharge, but the Court rejected this, finding it contrary to the public interest and that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence, the significant disruption caused, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the defendant's defiant conduct and the late plea.

The Court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and 20 hours of community service, including a term prohibiting impeding international border crossings.

Robert Patterson was charged with assault causing bodily harm.

He claimed self-defence, arguing he was defending himself from the complainant who had entered his home.

The court found that while there was an "air of reality" to the self-defence claim, the defendant's subjective belief that force was being used or threatened was not credible, nor was it objectively reasonable.

Furthermore, his conduct was not for the purpose of self-defence and was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly the continued stabbing after the complainant fell.

The defendant was found guilty.

The offender, James Lachine, was found guilty of aggravated assault and forcible confinement.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered the serious nature of the multi-assailant beating, the significant injuries to the victim, and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

The court also addressed the offender's claim of Indigenous heritage, finding no sufficient connection to his current circumstances to warrant special consideration under Gladue principles.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and considering aggravating factors like the violent nature of the attack and the offender's criminal history, alongside mitigating factors such as partner support and sobriety, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

Kevin Murphy pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault.

The incident stemmed from a road rage encounter where Murphy pursued a vehicle that had rear-ended him, leading to a physical altercation in which a passenger, Mr. Susko, was stabbed while intervening.

Mr. Susko sustained severe injuries requiring surgery.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the pursuit, use of a weapon, and significant victim impact, alongside mitigating factors such as Murphy's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

Applying sentencing principles, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with electronic monitoring, followed by two years of probation, a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and restitution for the victim's lost earnings.

The Offender, Ricky Simpson, pleaded guilty to assault and distributing an intimate image without consent.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violence of the assault, its intimate partner context, the significant impact on the victim, and the offender's prior domestic violence conviction.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea (though late in the trial process) and family support.

The court also assessed pre-sentence custody credit (Summers credit) and additional mitigation for time on bail (Downes credit) and harsh custody conditions (Duncan credit) due to lockdowns and overcrowding during the pandemic.

The judge imposed a 7-month conditional sentence, credited with 95 days pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with child luring under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused communicated with a minor via online platforms with the purpose of facilitating the commission of child pornography offences.

The accused claimed the complainant told him she was 18 years old and never disclosed her true age until police became involved.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as self-serving and inconsistent, finding it lacked credibility.

The judge accepted the complainant's evidence that she disclosed her true age (14) early in their relationship.

The court found the Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the accused's knowledge of the complainant's age and his purpose in facilitating child pornography offences.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and other offenses stemming from a 1990 home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence from a T-shirt and a photographic lineup identification by the victim.

The court found the DNA evidence unreliable due to a lack of proven link between the T-shirt and the crime, noting multiple other semen samples on the bedsheet that excluded the accused.

The photographic lineup was deemed fatally flawed due to procedural defects, including the distinctive appearance of the accused's photograph and the victim's reliance on intuition.

Emphasizing the duty to prevent wrongful convictions, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, as both pieces of evidence lacked reliability and could not cumulatively establish guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter due to 25.5 years of pre-charge delay and the loss of an evidence control sheet.

The court found that the police decision not to send the victim's t-shirt for forensic analysis in 1990 was not negligent or oppressive state conduct, as DNA testing capabilities were limited at the time and conventional serology would not have led to charges.

The court also found that the loss of the evidence control sheet did not constitute a Charter breach, as there was no air of reality that it would have materially assisted the defence.

The application for a stay was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The accused, a 19-year-old first offender, was convicted of break and enter, assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents in one morning.

He broke into an occupied residential home and later broke into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner and engaged in a physical struggle while brandishing a knife.

The court emphasized individual deterrence and rehabilitation for a youthful first offender but noted the seriousness of breaking into an occupied dwelling.

The accused was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment and 18 months' probation.

The accused was charged with common assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, break and enter, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents on the same morning.

The first incident involved a break and enter at a residence where property was stolen.

The second incident involved the accused breaking into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner, leading to a physical altercation involving a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, applied the doctrine of recent possession, and found the accused guilty on all counts.