Angela L. McLeod

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 192 grams of cocaine and 583 grams of a cutting agent in his safe.

The Crown sought 30 to 36 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence order.

The court found the accused was a mid-level trafficker motivated by profit, making a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by 18 months of probation.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Christopher Scaglione for assault causing bodily harm and breach of a release order.

The court rejected the defence's arguments of provocation and consensual fight, finding the assault to be unprovoked, premeditated, and disproportionate, with the accused continuing to assault the victim after he was unconscious.

Aggravating factors included the accused's extensive criminal record for violent offences and administration of justice offences.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and a gap in his criminal record.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 30 months.

August Greiner pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of dangerous operation of a conveyance, involving attacks on police officers and damage to property.

The incidents were linked to the accused's significant, largely untreated mental health issues, exacerbated by recent personal losses.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's mental health and ongoing treatment.

The court imposed a 270-day conditional sentence, followed by 24 months probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved through a conditional sentence, and that public protection was best served by the accused's continued mental health treatment, which was central to the offence.

This is a sentencing decision for Emmanuel Faria, who pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter.

The victim, SB, who was under 16 at the time of the offence, suffered significant and traumatic impact.

Mr. Faria, a first-time offender, young, and without a criminal record, undertook extensive counselling and psychiatric assessment, showing insight and remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 24-36 months probation and a DNA order, emphasizing the victim's profound impact.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing that a conviction would adversely affect Mr. Faria's future employment and subvert community interests.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 24 months of non-reporting probation, including a term of no contact with the victim, and declined the DNA order, finding it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, consistent with principles for conditional discharges.

S.B. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to her 8-month-old infant, R.B., who sustained multiple fractures.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's age, breach of trust, and delay in seeking medical attention, alongside mitigating factors including S.B.'s mental health issues, reduced cognitive capabilities, postpartum depression, and guilty plea.

Applying sentencing principles from R. v. McCauley and R. v. Habib, the court found special mitigating circumstances warranted a conditional sentence.

S.B. was sentenced to a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by 36 months probation, a 10-year section 110 order, and a DNA order.

The accused, Wyatt Hallahan, was charged with assaulting a police officer.

The defence admitted the actus reus but argued involuntary intoxication, claiming the accused unknowingly and involuntarily consumed a mystery intoxicant in addition to alcohol.

The court found the accused's behaviour inconsistent with alcohol intoxication and accepted that he did not voluntarily ingest any drugs.

The court concluded that the accused's intoxication was involuntary, thereby negating the voluntariness of his actions, and acquitted him.

The accused, Gerry Hawes, pleaded guilty to accessing child pornography contrary to Section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the low number of images, the accused's lack of prior record, mental health issues, and significant collateral consequences.

The Crown sought 90 days' incarceration, while the defence sought a 120-day conditional sentence.

The court found the mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional and determined that a conditional sentence could meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a 240-day conditional sentence, followed by 24 months' probation, a DNA order, forfeiture of the laptop, a 5-year s. 161 order, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

This is a sentencing decision for Charlston Lewis, who pleaded guilty to charges arising from a prolonged and multi-faceted incident of intimate partner violence against Ms. Marshall, his partner of 11 years, who suffered from a known brain disorder.

The assault, which included choking and striking her head, occurred in the presence of their children and was partially recorded on an in-house security camera.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the presence of children, the history of abuse, and the controlling nature of the offender's actions.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, extensive counselling undertaken by the offender, and his remorse.

The Crown sought 12-24 months of 'real jail', while the defence proposed a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles, particularly in cases of intimate partner violence and abuse of vulnerable persons.

Considering the impact of COVID-19 on incarceration conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 180 days custody for assault and a concurrent 90 days custody for choking, followed by a 24-month probation term with strict conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA orders, and forfeiture of weapons.

The offender, Andrew Gabourie, pleaded guilty to multiple Criminal Code charges, including arson endangering life, possession of an explosive substance, and uttering threats.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his lengthy criminal record, the planned nature of the arson, and the presence of many people near the fire.

Mitigating factors included his guilty pleas and significant mental health issues (PTSD, ADHD, severe anxiety, bipolar disorder).

The court also considered the harsh conditions of his presentence custody, which was spent in segregation (Behavioural Stabilization Unit), exacerbated by his mental health.

Applying Summers, Duncan, and Hearns credits for presentence custody, including enhanced credit for segregation and COVID-19 conditions, the court imposed a total sentence of 1200 days, which was reduced to time served.

The accused was charged with arson following the destruction of the Alliston Feed Mill by fire in August 2016.

The Crown's theory was that the accused started the fire to send a message to his ex-girlfriend, who was staying at an adjacent residence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's prior conduct of burning the ex-girlfriend's belongings, his presence near the mill at the time of the fire, and alleged knowledge that the ex-girlfriend would be at the adjacent residence.

At the preliminary inquiry, the justice found that the Crown failed to establish the essential facts necessary to support the inference of guilt, particularly that the accused knew the ex-girlfriend would be staying at the adjacent residence.

The accused was discharged and not committed to trial.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm to his former partner following an acrimonious breakup and child custody dispute.

The court applied the objective reasonable person test for the actus reus and found the words uttered clearly constituted a threat.

The court also found the subjective mens rea was met, as the accused intended his words to intimidate the complainant and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellants were charged with selling tobacco to a person under 19 years of age contrary to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Both entered guilty pleas at their first appearance without legal representation.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the validity of their guilty pleas, arguing that the plea inquiry was inadequate, that language barriers compromised their understanding, and that the court failed to inform them of their right to trial or to assist them in obtaining representation.

The court found that the guilty pleas should be quashed because the defendant did not accept the facts underpinning the conviction, and because the plea inquiry was insufficiently detailed given the unsophisticated nature of provincial offences court participants.

The accused was tried on a single count of operating a motor vehicle with blood/alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown called two witnesses: a security guard and the arresting officer who was also a qualified breath technician.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 9 and 10(b), seeking remedies under section 24(2).

The court found that the accused was psychologically detained at her residential door without being advised of her rights to counsel, and that she was arbitrarily detained in a locked cell for 89 minutes after being determined releasable.

The court excluded the breath evidence due to the serious Charter breaches and the accused was acquitted.

A young person was tried on three counts: sexual assault and two counts of breaching probation conditions.

The complainant, a 17-year-old female, testified that she was sexually assaulted by the accused after consuming a significant quantity of alcohol at a party.

The accused was one of only two males present when the alleged assault occurred.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and her evidence reliable despite her extreme intoxication and poor lighting conditions in the bedroom.

The complainant's immediate disclosure to her boyfriend and her consistent account throughout the investigation and trial were found to be corroborating factors.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

A concerned citizen reported erratic driving, and the accused was arrested after failing a screening device test.

The Crown's case on the over 80 charge failed because the first breath sample was not taken as soon as practicable; the officer delayed the testing by 24 minutes to facilitate the accused's contact with duty counsel despite the accused's express declination of that right.

The impaired operation charge succeeded based on the constellation of observations by both the citizen witness and the arresting officer, establishing impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.