B. Lawson

The offender was convicted of possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after being found with the drugs in the footwell of a vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought 30 months to three years.

The court weighed the significant quantity of drugs as an aggravating factor against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, family support, and addiction issues as mitigating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and relying on appellate guidance for similar offences, the court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment.

The offender pleaded guilty to an offence under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act involving methamphetamine.

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the offender's guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence order, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana after police discovered a grow operation in his home.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months in custody and a 20% forfeiture of the offender's real property, while the self-represented offender sought 9 months and a 5% forfeiture.

The court sentenced the offender to 12 months in custody (reduced to 11 months for pre-sentence custody) and ordered a 10% forfeiture of his ownership interest in the property, balancing his prior related criminal record with his guilty plea and significant medical issues.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a complainant who was under sixteen years old at the time of the alleged incidents.

The case turned primarily on credibility, with only the complainant and the accused testifying.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony as unreliable but nonetheless found that the Crown had not proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concerns included the absence of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements on material points, and aspects of the account that appeared implausible.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and credibility principles including those discussed in R. v. W.(R.), the court concluded that a reasonable doubt remained.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault, the court imposed sentence for an offence involving sexual intercourse with an adult complainant who was significantly incapacitated by alcohol and/or drugs.

The court determined that the jury’s verdict necessarily implied that sexual intercourse occurred but found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered a drug to facilitate the assault.

The evidence established that the offender took advantage of a vulnerable and intoxicated complainant and escorted her from a bar to his home where the assault occurred.

Aggravating factors included the complainant’s incapacitation, the serious and lasting emotional harm caused, and the offender’s exploitation of vulnerability.

Balancing mitigating factors including community contributions and health issues, the court imposed a 30‑month penitentiary sentence with mandatory DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registration orders.

The applicant union sought a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the employer's use of specified replacement workers during a strike at its brewery.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to operate the power plant to prevent danger to life, health, or safety, and to prevent serious deterioration of equipment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while an engineer was required to monitor the plant even if production ceased, the employer already had two managerial employees capable of safely operating the plant.

The Board concluded that the employer failed to establish that additional specified replacement workers were necessary within the meaning of section 73.2(3).

The application was granted and the employer was prohibited from using the specified replacement workers.