Bev Olesko

S.S.S. was found guilty of sexual assault and inviting a person under 14 to touch him for a sexual purpose, committed against a child complainant (2-4 years old) on three occasions in 2003-2004.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, multiple incidents in the victim's home, and profound harm to the complainant.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, continuous employment, and family support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as unfit, citing R. v. Friesen for the need for denunciation and deterrence in child sexual assault cases.

A sentence of three years imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Cindy Ali, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter.

Following a successful appeal of a prior conviction, she proceeded to a new trial without a jury.

The Crown alleged she smothered her daughter, either as a planned act (mercy killing), an impulsive act (second-degree murder), or through criminal negligence by failing to provide necessaries of life (manslaughter) during a staged home invasion.

The defence maintained her innocence, asserting a genuine home invasion by intruders or an accidental death due to seizure/aspiration.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's culpability, noting that both the defence's home invasion account and the Crown's staging theory were equally consistent with the evidence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of her 16-year-old daughter, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy.

The Crown alleged the accused smothered the victim and staged a home invasion to cover it up.

The accused testified that two armed intruders entered the home searching for a package, and that one of them remained with the victim while the other searched the house.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles and found that the evidence of the home invasion, while containing some inconsistencies, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also acquitted the accused of manslaughter, finding insufficient evidence that she was capable of assisting the victim after the intruders left.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, R.P., was found guilty of four offences against a six-year-old child in her care: assault causing bodily harm (pelvic/scrotum injuries from heated implement), assault with a weapon (stick) and assault (hand) (buttocks injuries), and assault with a weapon (belt) (back injuries).

The Crown sought a four-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of less than two years.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severity and nature of the abuse, which involved multiple incidents, weapons, and a significant breach of trust, exacerbated by the victim's isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' imprisonment, composed of consecutive and concurrent terms for the various offences, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused, S.S., was tried on one count of sexual assault and one count of inviting a person under 14 to touch him for a sexual purpose, involving a child complainant.

The defense argued fabrication due to a financial dispute between S.S. and the complainant's father.

The court rejected the defense's evidence as implausible and inconsistent, particularly S.S.'s explanation for seeking forgiveness post-arrest.

The court found the complainant and her parents credible, accepting their accounts of incidents in the Scarborough townhouse.

While finding reasonable doubt for incidents in Red Deer and Stouffville, the court found S.S. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the incidents in Scarborough, which were sufficient for conviction on both counts.

The accused brought a section 276 application seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant regarding her prior sexual history, specifically allegations of sexual assault by a third party ("Uncle M.") disclosed in a videotaped police statement.

The accused argued that evidence of the complainant's prior sexual history was relevant to the issue of identity, contending that the complainant may have confused or transferred the conduct of Uncle M. to the accused.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the strictures of section 276 precluded such cross-examination.

The court denied the application, finding that while the evidence did not engage the "twin myths," the allegations were sufficiently distinct in time, location, and nature that identity was not a real issue at trial, and therefore the evidence lacked the requisite relevance under section 276(2)(b).

A young person was convicted of multiple offences arising from a home invasion style robbery committed on August 8, 2011.

The offences included unlawfully being in a dwelling, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threatening death, and robbery while armed with a firearm.

The Crown applied to designate the offences as serious violent offences under section 42(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person facilitated entrance into the victims' apartment and was a party to the offences, though he did not directly participate in the physical violence.

The victims suffered substantial physical and psychological harm, including one victim having his thumb and toe severed.

The court granted the Crown's application for serious violent offence designation and imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a four-year-old child and one count of breaching his recognizance.

The offence involved performing cunnilingus on the child and having her masturbate the accused.

The accused was released on bail with conditions prohibiting contact with children under 16, which he breached 19 days later by attempting to pick up another child from the same daycare.

The court sentenced the accused to 12½ months imprisonment followed by three years probation, with nine months pre-sentence custody credited, resulting in three months additional imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles while considering the accused's mental illness, intellectual deficits, guilty plea, and uncertain immigration status as mitigating factors.

The accused was charged with robbery of a convenience store and concealing his face during the robbery.

The sole issue was identification.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the eyewitness identification of the store clerk, who testified that he recognized the robber as a customer he had seen approximately ten times over the previous year.

The court found the witness credible but determined that the reliability of the eyewitness identification was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that while the witness's familiarity with the customer bolstered the reliability of the identification, it did not, in the context of all the evidence and the absence of corroborating evidence, establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.