Anya Kortenaar

The accused pleaded guilty to obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services contrary to section 286.2 of the Criminal Code.

Between April 8 and August 16, 2022, the accused facilitated and profited from the complainant's sale of sexual services through advertising, managing communications with clients, booking hotel rooms, and transporting the complainant across multiple cities.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 18 months of probation, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for sexual commodification offences, the circumstances of this case—involving a single adult victim, no violence or coercion, and the accused's rehabilitation efforts—warranted a community-based sentence rather than incarceration.

The decision addresses whether the complainant D.P. may give recognition evidence identifying S.P. and Geza Gelencser in videos found on a laptop seized from Mr. Gelencser’s home.

The court finds that D.P. is in a better position than the jury to identify S.P. and Mr. Gelencser based on her prior acquaintance and specific knowledge, and admits the evidence.

The defendant, a high school mathematics teacher, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against two 15-year-old female students, involving inappropriate touching.

The Crown sought 12 months incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust by a teacher, the victims' vulnerability, and the ongoing negative impact on the victims.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's loss of employment and emotional suffering.

The court also considered the defendant's prior assault conviction in 2009, which indicated a pattern of inappropriate touching.

The court found the mandatory minimum sentence of one year imprisonment under s. 271(a) of the Criminal Code to be constitutionally invalid under s. 12 of the Charter in this case.

The defendant was sentenced to two months intermittent incarceration, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and ten-year weapons and s. 161 prohibitions.

Crown counsel, on behalf of Complainant C.G., applied for an order lifting a mandatory publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, which had been imposed in incest proceedings.

C.G. wished to publicize her story to encourage other victims and aid her healing.

The other complainant, H.B., did not consent to lifting the ban, and the Accused, T.S.H., opposed it due to concerns about youth criminal justice information.

The court acknowledged its jurisdiction to revoke the ban given C.G.'s consent, but ultimately refused the application, prioritizing H.B.'s privacy interests and the criminal justice system's assurance of victim identity protection.

The court suggested alternative ways for C.G. to tell her story without revealing her identity.

The accused sought a ruling that his Charter rights were breached due to his arrest and detention exceeding 24 hours, and requested a stay of charges.

The court found that the police officer's decision to detain the accused overnight, resulting in a 25.5-hour detention before a show cause hearing, constituted a prima facie breach of sections 7, 9, and 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings, balancing the seriousness of the breach against the gravity of the charges and the administration of justice, noting that the accused was released on bail the next morning.

The court admonished the police for the unreasonable detention.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought leave under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to use the complainant's hospital records during cross-examination.

The records, which were disclosed by the Crown, contained statements made by the complainant to a social worker and physician that were inconsistent with her subsequent police statement.

The court weighed the factors under s. 278.92(3) and found that the accused's right to make full answer and defence outweighed the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted the application, allowing the accused to use the records to prove prior inconsistent statements.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and threatening death following an incident at his apartment.

After a night of drinking, an argument erupted between the accused and his girlfriend, which escalated from the bedroom to the hallway and lobby.

The Crown's case relied on two civilian witnesses whose credibility was significantly compromised.

The trial judge found the Crown's evidence unreliable and accepted the accused's version that he bit the complainant in an immediate, unpremeditated reaction to being bitten first.

The court dismissed both charges, finding reasonable doubt on the facts and applying the broader "reflex action" doctrine established in case law.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault and one count of mischief, arguing that the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence and improperly used bad character evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to high deference, particularly given corroborating evidence such as an audio recording.

The court also determined that the trial judge's comments on the accused's behavior while intoxicated were findings of fact based on the totality of evidence, not improper propensity reasoning, and that the judge was aware of the limited use of discreditable conduct evidence.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, robbery, and break and enter.

The central issue was the identity of the accused as one of the perpetrators.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's fingerprints found on a drug jar at the scene, cell phone records, and the accused's prior lies to the police.

The defence presented an alibi and argued that the fingerprints could have been left during earlier, legitimate drug transactions with the victim.

The court found the accused and his alibi witness not credible due to inconsistencies and vagueness.

However, the court also found the victim's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory, the identity of "TYBO" (a client recorded in his drug book), and the frequency of washing his drug jars.

Given the conflicting evidence and the victim's lack of credibility on key points, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence in a pre-trial motion that the accused failed to report an altercation to the police, arguing it was relevant to rebut their anticipated claim of self-defence.

The accused argued that admitting such evidence would violate their common law and constitutional right to silence, which arises the moment events occur that could give rise to a criminal charge.

The court agreed with the accused, holding that the right to silence precedes any interaction with police and that the accused, being both suspects and victims, were entitled to remain silent.

The Crown's motion to lead the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and robbery, brought a pretrial motion to exclude statements he made to police during two interviews.

He argued the first statement was involuntary due to police trickery—specifically, the failure to disclose fingerprint evidence—and that he was psychologically detained, resulting in Charter breaches.

The court applied the Oickle and Grant frameworks, finding the first statement was voluntary and the accused was not detained, as he attended the station willingly and was free to leave.

Consequently, the second statement was not tainted, and all statements were ruled admissible.

The accused, a personal support worker at a long-term care facility, pleaded guilty to assaulting an elderly dementia patient in a wheelchair.

The assault was captured on video surveillance and consisted of 11 strikes to the victim's face during a diaper change.

The victim suffered no physical injuries but the family experienced significant emotional trauma.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence with 18 months' probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding that incarceration was necessary to protect vulnerable populations and deter similar conduct by caregivers.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de sa déclaration de culpabilité pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies, soutenant que son plaidoyer de culpabilité n'était pas éclairé ni volontaire en raison de sa compréhension limitée de l'anglais.

Elle prétendait ne pas avoir pleinement compris les conséquences du plaidoyer lorsque son avocat anglophone les lui a expliquées.

La Cour supérieure de justice a rejeté l'appel, concluant que l'appelante comprenait les chefs d'accusation, les peines possibles et l'entente sur le plaidoyer.

La cour a souligné qu'elle avait eu amplement l'occasion de demander un interprète mais ne l'avait pas fait, et que ses interactions avec la police et son avocat démontraient une maîtrise suffisante de l'anglais pour comprendre les procédures.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of similar facts regarding the defendant's pattern of corporal discipline against his daughters.

The defendant was charged with assault and assault with a weapon against his daughter Médijean, allegedly occurring between January 1, 2008 and March 29, 2016.

The Crown sought to introduce testimony from the defendant's other daughter, Amivi, regarding similar beatings she experienced in Ghana before the family immigrated to Canada.

The court applied the test from R. v. Handy to determine admissibility of similar fact evidence and found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, particularly given that the trial was before a judge alone rather than a jury.

The Crown sought a pre-trial ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of a video statement provided by the accused to police.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to alleged excessive force during arrest.

The court found that the brief and reasonable force used by police during the arrest, which occurred ten hours prior, did not impact the accused's state of mind when giving the statement to an officer not involved in the arrest.

No threats or inducements were found.

The statement was deemed voluntary and admissible.

The Crown brought a motion for the summary dismissal of the respondent's appeal of her impaired driving conviction.

The respondent had pleaded guilty but appealed on three grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of understanding of the plea due to language difficulties, and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence grounds, finding that the respondent received appropriate advice and that the admitted facts supported the conviction.

However, the court allowed the appeal to proceed solely on the issue of whether the respondent's language difficulties rendered her guilty plea uninformed or involuntary.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement of a 14-year-old complainant.

The complainant accompanied the accused on an overnight trip to Ottawa, where they shared a hotel room.

The complainant alleged the accused insisted she sleep in his bed and subsequently touched her breast and belly for a sexual purpose.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as unreliable and contradictory.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault, while the unlawful confinement charge was withdrawn.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault following a horrific, drug-fueled home invasion.

The court accepted a joint submission for a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 18 years for the murder, along with concurrent sentences of 14 years for attempted murder and 6 years for aggravated assault.

The court weighed the extreme violence and premeditation against the offender's early guilty pleas, deep remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

Two accused persons were jointly charged with dangerous driving while racing contrary to section 249.4(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged they were operating motor vehicles in a race on Forrest Lea Road.

The trial judge found that while both accused were driving at excessive speeds on an unfamiliar rural road without paying attention to traffic signs, they were not engaged in racing as contemplated by the statute.

The judge found the accused were driving one behind the other, not side by side in competitive fashion.

The judge convicted both accused of the lesser included offence of dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by one or more drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, having failed to investigate alternative explanations for the accused's physical condition such as head injury or fatigue.

The court further found that a subsequent demand for standardized field sobriety tests was unlawful as it was made after arrest without proper authority.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations, rendering the Crown's case untenable.