Beverly A. Brown

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault and incest of his four-year-old daughter, as well as making, possessing, and distributing child pornography depicting the abuse.

The offences occurred between January 2011 and November 2015.

The accused had sole custody of the victim and exploited this position of trust to sexually abuse her repeatedly and document the abuse through photographs and videos, which he distributed online to strangers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, reduced to 7.5 years after pre-sentence custody credit of 2.5 years.

Ancillary orders included forfeiture of the cell phone, lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA sampling, and a section 161 prohibition order restricting internet access and proximity to the victim.

The defendant was charged with failure to report a material change in connection with entitlement to benefits within 10 days of the change, contrary to s. 149(2) of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, 1997.

Following an initial acquittal and a successful appeal by the prosecutor, a new trial was ordered.

Prior to the re-trial, the defendant's agent raised the issue of fitness to stand trial, arguing the defendant was unable to conduct his defence due to memory loss regarding the relevant events.

The court ordered a forensic psychiatric assessment.

The forensic psychiatrist concluded that the defendant was fit to stand trial, finding that the defendant's claims of memory loss were exaggerated and that he could communicate with counsel.

The court found the defendant fit and remitted the matter to Provincial Offence trial court for trial.

The Crown brought a prima facie application under section 672.33 of the Criminal Code to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to put the respondent on trial for assault causing bodily harm.

The respondent had been found unfit to stand trial in 2010 and remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.

The court addressed two issues: (1) whether the application was brought within the required two-year timeframe and whether an extension was warranted under section 672.33(1.1), and (2) whether the Crown's evidentiary material was adequate.

The court found that while the application was brought approximately seven weeks beyond the two-year anniversary date, an extension was necessary for the proper administration of justice given the circumstances.

The court also found the Crown's affidavit evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The offender was sentenced following guilty pleas to certain charges and convictions after trial for offences arising from participation in the G20 demonstration in Toronto on June 26-27, 2010.

The offender engaged in a deliberate and extended pattern of property destruction, including attacking a marked police cruiser containing a uniformed officer, damaging a CBC media van, striking another police vehicle, and throwing an object at a business.

The offender was masked during most of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of ten months incarceration, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation as paramount sentencing principles, along with a weapons prohibition order, DNA order, and probation conditions.

The defendants were charged with unlawful production of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a grow operation in their residence.

Police attended the residence in response to a 911 call regarding a shooting in which one defendant was shot in the abdomen.

While conducting what was characterized as a cursory search for additional victims and evidence related to the shooting, officers descended into the basement without a warrant and discovered a marijuana grow operation.

The defence brought a Charter application under section 8 seeking exclusion of the drug evidence on the basis of an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the police had no legal basis to search the basement, that the search was not reasonably incidental to the shooting investigation, and that the conduct constituted a serious breach of Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the defendants were acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with unlawful production of cannabis, two counts of possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, and fraud under $5,000 of electricity.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b) and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin, considering the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

The total delay was approximately 16 months from the information being sworn to the trial date.

The court found that while the Crown caused approximately 1 month and 18 days of delay in providing initial disclosure, the remainder of the delay was attributable to inherent time requirements of the case, including the complexity of the charges, the need for a judicial pre-trial, and the time required for counsel preparation.

The court dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mgs of alcohol in his body.

At trial, a dispute arose regarding whether the accused required a Tibetan interpreter.

The Crown challenged the necessity of an interpreter, arguing the accused spoke English.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the accused had a Charter right to interpreter assistance under section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court examined the accused's proficiency in English through his testimony and video evidence of police interactions, ultimately finding that the accused spoke English sufficiently and did not meet the threshold for requiring an interpreter.