3 total
The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial term of two years less a day for an offender who sexually abused a four-year-old child.
This sentencing decision addresses the sexual interference conviction of M.B., who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his four-year-old niece.
The court considered the offender's background, mental health issues, and the serious nature of the offence, including the offender's exploitation of a position of trust and the lasting impact on the victim.
The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse offences, and imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day, followed by probation and ancillary orders.
Preliminary inquiries are available if the alleged offence period straddles a sentence-increasing legislative amendment.
The Crown sought direction from the court regarding the defendant's eligibility for a preliminary inquiry for sexual offences alleged to have occurred during a period that straddled a legislative amendment increasing maximum sentences.
The court considered the interplay of the Criminal Code amendments, particularly Bill C-75, and section 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court ruled that if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant could be found guilty of criminal conduct that took place entirely after the sentencing amendment, they are potentially exposed to the higher maximum sentence and are therefore entitled to request a preliminary inquiry.
Accused acquitted of assault charges after successfully raising self-defence against an aggressive, intoxicated passenger.
The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant repeatedly with a knife in her vehicle.
The accused claimed self-defence, testifying that the intoxicated complainant became aggressive, punched the vehicle's interior, took her phone, and lunged at her.
The court found an air of reality to the defence and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not reasonably believe she was under threat of force, or that her response was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The accused was found not guilty.
