Angela L. McLeod

The accused, a 30-31 year old man, was charged with child luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for communicating with a 13-14 year old girl via Facebook Messenger over a 17-month period.

The Crown alleged the communications were for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault or abduction.

The defence conceded the accused communicated intentionally with a person under 16 years of age but disputed whether the communications were for the specified criminal purpose.

The court found that the messages, when read contextually and considering the meaning of emojis used, constituted grooming behaviour designed to facilitate a designated offence.

The accused was convicted.

Martin Moore pleaded guilty to multiple offences including attempted disarming of a peace officer, break and enter, fraud under $5000, and assaulting a peace officer.

The court rejected a joint sentencing submission of 120 days custody, finding it unhinged from the circumstances and offender's conduct.

The judge emphasized that an attempt to disarm a peace officer is as serious as a successful disarmament under s. 270.1 of the Criminal Code, and that the offender's failure to succeed is not mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 300 days custody with enhanced presentence credit, probation, and ancillary orders, highlighting numerous aggravating factors including breach of recognizance, false identification, and violent conduct.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence for Baskaran Balasooriyan, convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a 12-year-old child, mischief, criminal harassment, and breach of release order.

The court considered the applicability of the Kienapple principle to stay counts, the availability of a s. 161 order to protect children, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order.

The judge rejected the defence's proposed conditional sentence and stay of mischief, emphasizing the high moral culpability, risk to the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed included 420 days custody for attempted abduction (fully credited for presentence custody), 60 days for possession, and a suspended sentence for breach, followed by probation, DNA, s. 161, and s. 109 orders.

The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a person under 14, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession to find knowledge of the stolen vehicle.

For the attempted abduction, the court found the accused's repeated attempts to lure the child into his car constituted enticement with intent to deprive parents of possession.

The mischief charge was upheld as the accused's conduct interfered with the victim's enjoyment of the public park.

Criminal harassment was proven as the accused's repeated communication caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety, and the accused was reckless as to whether his conduct would cause harassment.

This criminal trial concerned charges of intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire, common nuisance, and breach of a release order against the accused, Jeanette Belanger.

The Crown alleged the accused set fire to a residence out of retribution for infidelity, knowing it was occupied.

The court examined circumstantial evidence, including grainy security footage, text messages purportedly from the accused, and the testimony of a key witness, Simon Pelletier.

The Fire Marshall's investigation could not definitively determine the fire's cause, identifying five possible ignition sources.

The court found the security footage inconclusive for identification, the electronic messages unreliable due to lack of expert evidence and uncertain dating, and Simon Pelletier's testimony untrustworthy as he admitted to lying.

Applying principles for circumstantial cases, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

The defendant, Mohamed Belkhier, pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter, failing to provide the necessities of life, refusing a breath demand, impaired operation, and assaulting a peace officer.

The court rejected a joint sentencing submission for the assault and failure to provide necessities of life charges, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the vulnerability of the infant victim and the defendant's breaches of release orders.

The court also clarified that it was bound by the agreed statement of facts for sentencing, not the preliminary inquiry evidence, and that collateral immigration consequences, while relevant, cannot override proportionality.

Katie Brittain was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court assessed the admissibility of an utterance made by Brittain to police and the sufficiency of evidence for committal to trial.

The court found the utterance was not spontaneous, was made while Brittain was detained/arrested and uncauioned, and therefore not voluntary and inadmissible.

Without the utterance, there was insufficient evidence to establish knowledge, possession, and control of the seized drugs.

Consequently, the accused was discharged.

The accused, Travis Jolliffe, pleaded guilty to assaulting his one-month-old baby, causing rib fractures.

The baby later died from accidental suffocation, unrelated to the assault, but the accused's failure to seek medical attention for the initial injuries was an aggravating factor.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and lack of medical care, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, cooperation, remorse, completion of a parenting program, and status as a first-time, young, and immature offender.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, the court found the accused fell into the category of an immature parent acting out of frustration, lessening his moral culpability.

A conditional sentence was deemed appropriate to achieve sentencing objectives.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Ommema Ibeto.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, S.B., given significant inconsistencies and memory issues over time.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to the accused's testimony.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and incredible, leading to a finding of not guilty.

The applicant sought a stay of criminal proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a breach of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating a total delay of 649 days, which was 102 days over the 18-month (547-day) ceiling for provincial court cases.

After subtracting 15 days of defence-attributable delay for scheduling a Crown pretrial, the net delay remained 87 days above the ceiling.

Finding no exceptional circumstances or case complexity to justify the delay, the court granted the s. 11(b) application and stayed the proceedings.

This preliminary inquiry concerned charges of aggravated assault and criminal negligence against the accused, Mohamed Belkhier, relating to injuries sustained by a 5-month-old infant.

The inquiry focused solely on the aggravated assault count.

The Crown argued that the accused caused the injuries and failed to report them, suggesting a jury could infer intentional force.

The defence contended there was insufficient evidence for intentional force or objective foresight of harm, asserting the injuries were accidental.

The court reviewed the purpose and function of a preliminary inquiry, particularly the limited weighing of circumstantial evidence.

While the court found no evidence to support the Crown's theory of intentional force beyond conjecture, it determined there was sufficient evidence to infer recklessness in the accused's handling of the infant, which could objectively foreseeably cause bodily harm.

Consequently, the accused was committed to stand trial for aggravated assault.

Brandon Lake pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The collision occurred while he was driving at excessive speed and had failed to take his prescribed seizure medication, despite a known history of epilepsy and prior driving suspensions related to his medical condition.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day and a driving prohibition of at least 25 years.

The defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court found Lake's moral blameworthiness to be very high due to his disregard for license conditions and medical treatment.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given his history of non-compliance and the risk to public safety.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day custody, a 10-year driving prohibition, a s. 109 order for 10 years, a DNA order, and a s. 743.21 order.

The accused, N.J., was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was consent, assessed through the credibility and reliability of the complainant, J.H., and the accused.

The court rejected the accused's implausible testimony, finding it undermined his credibility.

Despite some minor inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, her testimony was found to be clear, concise, cogent, logical, and plausible, corroborated by text messages and a nurse practitioner's report.

The court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and registered a conviction.

The accused, B.M., pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on E.N., committed between November 2015 and November 2016, when E.N. was 15 years old and B.M. was 33-34.

The incidents involved fellatio and vaginal intercourse, occurring at the family business where B.M. was a long-time employee and E.N. worked.

The court found B.M. to be in a position of trust and engaged in grooming behavior.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less one day, while the defence proposed 12-15 months.

The court, emphasizing the gravity of sexual offenses against children and the high moral culpability of the offender, imposed a sentence of 36 months (3 years) custody, along with a 10-year s. 109 order, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a s. 743.21 order, exceeding the Crown's submission.

This decision addresses the sentencing of two unrelated first-time offenders, Paul Kingma and Michael Rozak, who pleaded guilty to firearms offences.

For Kingma, who was found to be an "utterly irresponsible gun owner" due to careless storage of multiple firearms and failure to report a lost handgun, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and 5-year firearm prohibitions, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence despite potential employment loss.

For Rozak, whose careless use of a firearm was linked to alcohol addiction and who had undertaken significant rehabilitation, the court granted an absolute discharge with 5-year firearm prohibitions, finding his moral culpability reduced and that rehabilitation outweighed the need for a conviction, considering severe collateral employment consequences.

The decision highlights the balancing of sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and collateral consequences, in the context of firearms offences and the public interest in responsible gun ownership.

The defendant, Mickey Berube, pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery involving convenience stores and a gas station, committed between May and July 2021.

The robberies involved brandishing a knife, wearing a mask, and escalating threats.

The sentencing hearing was delayed for a Gladue Report.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years, while the defence sought a remanent sentence of 2 years plus one day.

The court calculated presentence custody credit at the Summers rate of 1.5:1.

Aggravating factors included weapon use, vulnerable victims, masking, planning, and escalating violence.

Mitigating factors included guilty pleas, no prior record, drug addiction relapse, the spree nature of the offences, and remorse.

The court considered the defendant's background, including his Indigenous identity, unstable upbringing, and mental health issues, as detailed in the PSR and Gladue report.

Applying sentencing principles of restraint, deterrence, denunciation, and totality, and considering the range articulated in R. v. Asif, the court imposed a total sentence of 1485 days, resulting in a remanent sentence of 753 days after enhanced presentence custody credit, along with ancillary orders.

This is a sentencing decision for Andrew Kirkpatrick, who pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a weapon (a pellet gun) arising from a domestic incident.

The accused shot the complainant, his intimate partner, in the neck while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 180 days, 18 months probation, and a 10-year s. 109 order, which the court ultimately imposed.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and completion of a Partner Assault Response Program, alongside significant aggravating factors including prior convictions, the dangerous nature of the assault, lack of genuine remorse, and the domestic violence context.

The decision discusses the application of sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence, and the criteria for conditional sentence orders under the Criminal Code.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and two counts of luring.

The Crown sought a significant custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature of the child pornography and the profound impact on victims, and mitigating factors including the guilty plea and engagement in treatment.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the harm caused to child victims, aligning with the principles from R. v. Friesen.

The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to stop after an accident causing death, contrary to section 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The victim was struck and killed, and the defendant subsequently removed her purse from his vehicle and discarded it, delaying her identification and family notification.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and lack of criminal record, and aggravating factors including the disposal of the victim's purse, prior Highway Traffic Act convictions, and the substantial victim impact.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence, imposing a 12-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year section 109 order, a DNA order, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The accused, a young person, was charged with sexual assault.

The court found that the complainant did not subjectively consent to the sexual activity beyond initial kissing.

The accused relied on the complainant's silence, passivity, and ambiguous conduct, leading the court to conclude he was reckless or wilfully blind to the lack of consent.

The defence of mistaken belief in consent failed as the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, particularly as the sexual activity escalated and the parties were unfamiliar.

The court emphasized that "testing the waters" or relying on a lack of resistance does not constitute reasonable steps.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.