Ann London-Weinstein

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats against an 11-year-old child, as well as subsequent sexual offences against other young children.

The court reviewed extensive psychiatric evidence indicating the offender is an intractable pedophile with a high risk of reoffending and a history of deceit and substance abuse.

Finding no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community, the court declared the offender a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

The Crown sought an order compelling the Defence to file a Notice of Constitutional Question to challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The Defence argued that a prior Superior Court decision (R. v. M.(L.), 2016 ONSC 7082) had already declared the provision unconstitutional and of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, making a new constitutional question unnecessary.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, holding that a declaration of invalidity by a Superior Court judge with inherent jurisdiction renders the law null and void *in rem*, binding on the Crown until overturned on appeal, and thus the constitutionality of the provision was no longer "in question."

The offender was sentenced for failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault with a weapon against her 11-year-old son.

While her husband committed horrific acts of torture and abuse against the child, the offender was convicted for her failure to protect the child and intervene over a six-month period.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing her to 3 years' imprisonment, less 19 months of pre-trial custody credit, resulting in 17 months left to serve.

The accused parents were charged with multiple offences relating to the severe abuse, starvation, and confinement of their 11-year-old child.

The father claimed he was not criminally responsible due to post-traumatic stress disorder, arguing he was in a dissociative state.

The court rejected this defence, finding the father guilty of aggravated assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, failing to provide the necessaries of life, and firearms offences.

The stepmother was found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault with a weapon, but was acquitted of the joint charges of aggravated assault and confinement, as the court found her failure to intervene was not proven to be for the purpose of aiding the father.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code and unlawful possession of marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown admitted that Detective MacKillop's warrantless search of the accused's computer and thumb drive breached section 8 Charter rights.

The court found multiple Charter breaches including the warrantless search of electronic devices, the search of two additional devices not authorized by warrant, and a section 10(b) breach when the accused was questioned about computer ownership without being informed of the child pornography investigation or his right to counsel.

The court excluded the child pornography evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the pattern of police carelessness and disregard for Charter rights, notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence.