Anita Kocula

P.M. was charged with making child pornography, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his girlfriend's 9 or 10-year-old daughter.

The accused recorded the child manipulating her vagina, claiming it was to check for a yeast infection.

The court found the complainant and her mother credible.

Applying an objective test, the court determined the video's dominant characteristic was the depiction of the child's sexual organ for a sexual purpose, rejecting the medical defence.

The court found that P.M.'s direction to the child to touch herself constituted an indirect application of force, satisfying the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.

The touching was found to be for a sexual purpose, violating the child's sexual integrity.

P.M. was found guilty of all four counts.

Counts of sexual interference and sexual assault were conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle as they arose from the same conduct as counselling sexual touching.

The accused, Christopher Milford, challenged the admissibility of his confession and evidence seized under two search warrants, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the first search warrant valid.

However, it determined that Milford's s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached due to an unexplained two-hour delay in facilitating contact with counsel at the police station.

Furthermore, his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were breached because police failed to inform him that he was being investigated for new voyeurism charges involving different victims (Patricia and Esther) before his seven-hour interview, which significantly increased his jeopardy.

The court concluded that the confession and the evidence seized under the second warrant (which was largely based on the unconstitutionally obtained confession) must be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

The offender was found guilty of multiple firearms and drug possession offences following an uncontested trial.

The court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's disadvantaged background, experiences with systemic racism, and poverty.

The court also weighed the extremely harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including extensive lockdowns and triple-bunking during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence with these significant mitigating factors, the court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, less 65 months of enhanced pre-sentence credit, leaving 7 months to serve.

Zuvaan Hamilton brought a Charter application to exclude a handgun from his trial, alleging violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search of phone) and s. 10(b) (delay in right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found no serious violations of either right.

While there was a minor s. 10(b) breach regarding identity confirmation, it was not serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The search of the phone for identification was deemed lawful.

The delay in facilitating counsel was also found to be reasonable given the circumstances at the police detachment.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, P.M., was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and making child pornography.

During a voir dire, the court found P.M.'s video-recorded statement to police voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The police failed to provide P.M. with a reasonable opportunity to contact his chosen counsel, instead steering him to duty counsel without offering alternatives or documenting his consent to forgo waiting for his preferred lawyer.

The court found the police conduct serious, reflecting an institutional failure, and that the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

The Applicant, M.F., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the end of trial was 677 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court attributed 124 days of this delay to the defence for failing to raise 11(b) concerns in a timely manner after trial dates were set.

This reduced the net delay to 17.5 months, which falls below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault following an altercation where he stabbed the complainant in the neck and back.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant pulled out a firearm and shot at him.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both the accused's and the complainant's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill or rob the complainant, and failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after his spouse, who suffered from COPD, died when her home oxygen was turned off.

During the medical emergency response, the accused made several statements to police officers and a paramedic.

The defence brought an application to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that statements made to the first responding officers and the paramedic were voluntary and admissible, as the accused was not detained and the paramedic was not a person in authority.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) Charter breach occurred when officers told the accused he would be arrested but delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

Statements made after this breach were excluded under s. 24(2).

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

K.B. was found guilty of four counts of sexually assaulting S.F., a vulnerable adult with the intellectual capacity of a child, over a four-day period.

He was acquitted of unlawful confinement.

The court considered sentencing principles, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences against vulnerable persons, and applied principles from cases involving child sexual abuse.

Aggravating factors included the victim's extreme vulnerability, the prolonged nature of the assaults, the victim's lack of escape means, and K.B.'s significant criminal record including prior assaults.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years for the sexual assault counts, to be served concurrently.

After credit for pre-trial custody, the remaining sentence was 2 years and 54 days.

Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition, DNA sample order, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and a non-communication order.

The accused, a drug trafficker, was convicted of robbing another drug dealer of MDMA at gunpoint inside a vehicle, during which he shot the victim in the forearm.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought four years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit, balancing the gravity of the offences involving a loaded handgun with the youthful offender's rehabilitative efforts.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful confinement involving a 26-year-old complainant with an intellectual disability.

The complainant went missing for four days, during which time she stayed at the accused's apartment and was repeatedly sexually assaulted.

The court applied the standard for child witnesses to assess the complainant's credibility and found her evidence reliable regarding the sexual assaults.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of unlawful confinement due to a reasonable doubt about whether the complainant was held against her will.

Following a trial, Kenneth Ignacio was convicted of sexual assault involving non-consensual intercourse.

The court considered aggravating factors, including penetration and the absence of a condom, and mitigating factors, such as the offender being a youthful first offender with family support.

A significant aspect of the sentencing was the consideration of collateral immigration consequences, as Mr. Ignacio, a permanent resident, faced deportation due to any sentence of six months or more.

The court emphasized that while immigration consequences do not diminish moral blameworthiness, they must be accounted for under the principle of parity, requiring an adjustment to the sentencing range.

The Crown sought a sentence of two to three years, while the defence proposed 18 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months imprisonment, along with a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA sample order, and a no-contact order with the victim during custody.

The offender, a young Black man, was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.

At sentencing, the defence introduced expert reports detailing the history and impact of anti-Black racism in Canada, as well as a specific social history report on the offender.

The court admitted these reports, finding that systemic racism, socio-economic disadvantage, and the offender's personal history of trauma and educational failure constrained his choices and lessened his moral blameworthiness.

The court also found that the offender's Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) were violated during his arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months, reduced to 12 months to remedy the Charter breaches, followed by 18 months of probation, emphasizing that general deterrence and denunciation can be achieved through a more restrained sentence when viewed through a systemic lens.

This is a retrial of charges of impaired care or control and over 80 care or control of a motor vehicle.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a disabled vehicle on the side of a highway off-ramp at 2:00 a.m. after a single-vehicle accident.

The Crown argued the accused was driving when the accident occurred and remained in care or control thereafter.

The defence argued insufficient evidence of operation prior to 2:00 a.m. and that care or control was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the statutory presumption of care or control applied due to the accused's position in the driver's seat, this presumption was rebutted on the evidence.

The accused had called for a tow truck, the vehicle was disabled and could not be operated, the engine remained off throughout, and the accused never attempted to start the vehicle.

No realistic risk of danger was created by the accused's conduct.

Additionally, impairment was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, Kevin Morris, sought a stay of proceedings for firearm offences, alleging violations of his Charter rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10.

The court found no s. 9 violation regarding arbitrary detention or arrest, as police had reasonable grounds to arrest after the applicant fled.

A s. 7 violation was found due to D.C. Moorcroft's careless driving that struck the applicant, but not for excessive force by P.C. Faduck during the arrest.

A s. 10(b) violation occurred when P.C. Keefer questioned the applicant after he asserted his right to counsel, though the delay in accessing counsel was deemed reasonable due to medical needs.

Despite the Charter violations, the court dismissed the stay application, finding the violations were not egregious enough to warrant a stay, and a sentence reduction would be a more appropriate remedy.

A costs endorsement arising from a contested motion regarding access and ancillary orders for two children.

The respondent father was successful on all disputed issues concerning whether the applicant mother's partner could be present at exchanges and whether the father could pick up children at school.

The court awarded full costs recovery to the successful respondent, finding that the applicant acted unreasonably by insisting on her partner's involvement despite evidence of that partner's role in escalating conflict and despite the applicant's awareness of false statements made regarding the basis for the partner's bail conditions.