Brenda M. Green

The accused was charged with sexual assault after an encounter at a teenage house party.

The complainant had voluntarily consumed alcohol and experienced a total memory blackout.

The Crown alleged the complainant was too intoxicated to have the capacity to consent.

Reviewing circumstantial evidence from witnesses, the trial judge found the complainant initiated the encounter, navigated stairs, and communicated consent through her actions until she mistakenly called the accused by a different name, at which point the accused stopped.

The Court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked capacity or that the accused lacked an honest belief in communicated consent.

Sentencing for sexual assault, assault, and probation breaches arising from the offender's exploitation of two transient women struggling with addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under the Criminal Code, treated the complainants' vulnerability and the offender's prior sexual and violent record as serious aggravating factors, and rejected a defence request for an 18-month global sentence as demonstrably unfit.

The court nevertheless gave meaningful mitigating weight to streamlined trial admissions, severe and abusive pretrial custody conditions, inmate assaults related to the sexual offence charges, and significant collateral losses.

A global sentence of five years' imprisonment was imposed, less enhanced credit of 25 months for pretrial custody, together with ancillary no-contact, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, and DNA orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited, modified firearm and possession of that firearm in contravention of a court order prohibiting him from possessing firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years less credit for pretrial custody.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, crediting 1,032 days of pretrial custody (2 years, 10 months, and 2 days), with 900 days attributed to the firearm possession and 132 days consecutive for the breach of the prohibition order.

The sentencing was significantly influenced by the offender's Gladue report, which documented severe intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools, multiple family deaths, and systemic disadvantage affecting his moral culpability.

The court emphasized rehabilitation and restorative justice through Indigenous community support services rather than additional incarceration.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code for kissing and groping the breast area of his teenage stepdaughter.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation, along with a ten-year section 161 order, a ten-year SOIRA order, GPS monitoring, and a DNA order.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives with rehabilitation and restraint principles, recognizing exceptional circumstances that justified a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offence.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a pretrial application under section 486.3(3) of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination of certain adult witnesses who expressed fear of the self-represented accused, Stephen Doherty.

The accused faced multiple charges arising from two incidents.

The court found that the Crown met the onus on a balance of probabilities that appointing counsel would allow the witnesses to give a full and candid account and be in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court provided detailed directions on the selection of counsel, the role and limits of appointed counsel, and the accused’s involvement in instructing counsel.

The decision emphasizes balancing the accused’s fair trial rights with the protection of vulnerable witnesses and efficient court administration.

This sentencing decision by Justice B. Green in the Ontario Court of Justice addresses the sexual assault and assault convictions of Daniel Hall.

The judgment provides a detailed factual background of the offence, emphasizing the victim's vulnerability and the violent nature of the assaults.

The court carefully considers the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the principle of restraint, especially given the offender's lack of prior criminal record at the time of the offence.

The decision extensively reviews relevant appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the landmark R. v. Friesen decision, to establish the appropriate sentencing range for sexual offences involving vulnerable victims.

The court ultimately sentences Mr. Hall to five years' incarceration for sexual assault, with concurrent six months for assault, alongside ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration, DNA submission, weapons prohibition, and an eight-year peace bond to protect the victim.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference for engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence or two years' incarceration, emphasizing the offender's lack of a criminal record, traumatic background, and harsh pretrial custody conditions.

The court emphasized the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The offender was sentenced to three years' incarceration, mitigated by enhanced credit for harsh pretrial custody conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 21 months, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a 5-year section 161 prohibition.

The defendant, William Craig Robson, was charged with dangerous operation causing death and impaired operation causing death after a snowmobile stunt involving towing two young men on sleds over open water resulted in one drowning.

The court acquitted Robson of the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding his blood alcohol concentration at the time of operation.

However, the court found Robson guilty of dangerous operation causing death, determining that his conduct, including operating the snowmobile at high speed while towing individuals in uncontrolled conditions and under the influence of alcohol, constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The court also found legal causation, despite the victim's contributing actions, as Robson's dangerous operation was a significant contributing cause of the death.

L.C. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to his 13-year-old son, who suffered a broken clavicle after being pushed down stairs.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of four months home incarceration and 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child abuse.

Defence sought a conditional discharge and 12 months probation, citing L.C.'s guilty plea, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court denied a conditional discharge, finding it contrary to public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases.

A suspended sentence with a two-year probation order was imposed, along with a three-year firearms prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The court also considered the collateral consequences of restrictive bail conditions on the family.

The offender, Kevin Goudreau, was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and one count of breaching his probation order, stemming from a loud, racist, and homophobic rant in his backyard that terrified his gay neighbours.

Two counts of uttering death threats were stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the hateful language and significant impact on the victims (who were forced to move), and mitigating factors such as the offender's recent sobriety and completion of rehabilitation programs.

The Crown sought six months of incarceration, while the offender advocated for a conditional sentence.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.

The final sentence included intermittent incarceration and a three-year probation order with specific, tailored conditions, such as restrictions on public expression of hate and alcohol consumption outside the home, aimed at protecting the community and facilitating the offender's reintegration.

The defendant, Kevin Goudreau, was charged with two counts of uttering threats to cause death, two counts of criminal harassment by repeatedly communicating, and one count of breaching his probation order.

The charges arose from a loud, racist, and homophobic rant in his backyard, heard by his gay neighbours.

The court found that Goudreau knowingly conveyed threats and repeatedly communicated with the complainants, causing them to fear for their safety.

The court determined that "repeatedly" could mean "persistently" in the context of a lengthy, continuous tirade.

Goudreau was found guilty on all counts, with the court reserving judgment on whether the uttering threats charges should be conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Kurlan Cadet pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, contrary to section 320.14(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, after operating a vehicle with a blood-drug concentration exceeding the legal limit, resulting in serious injuries to his son and another passenger.

The Crown sought two years' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court, balancing general deterrence and denunciation with the offender's significant mitigating factors and collateral consequences (including his own severe injuries and the impact on his son), imposed a two-year conditional sentence with strict house arrest, GPS monitoring, and a five-year driving prohibition, followed by one year of probation.

The court emphasized that this was an exceptional case justifying a sentence outside the normal range to achieve restorative justice.

The accused pled guilty to possessing fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm while bound by a weapons prohibition.

The court weighed the devastating impact of fentanyl and gun violence against the accused's guilty plea, lack of prior related record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years incarceration, reduced by 1 year and 9 months for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions, resulting in 9 years and 3 months going forward.

The accused, a young Black man with no prior record, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm, altering its serial number, and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The court considered social context evidence regarding systemic racism and the accused's background, which mitigated his moral culpability for arming himself out of fear.

Acknowledging his strict compliance with house arrest bail conditions for over three years and his significant rehabilitative steps, the court imposed a 20-month conditional sentence followed by 16 months of probation, rather than the penitentiary term sought by the Crown.

The three defendants, Tuan Tai Le, Ba Loc Nguyen, and Phap Hong Nguyen, pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis plants in excess of the amount permitted by law at a licensed grow operation.

The Crown sought a six-month incarceration, while defence counsel requested absolute discharges.

The court found that the defendants were manual labourers with minimal moral culpability, having mistakenly believed their work was lawful due to cannabis legalization.

They suffered significant collateral immigration consequences, including loss of legal status and inability to work or return home.

The court dismissed the Crown's request for incarceration, finding it disproportionately punitive, and granted absolute discharges to all three defendants, deeming it in their best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

Christopher Benson, a repeat sex offender, was sentenced for breaching a 10-year Section 161 order by being present in his wife's home daycare and for making sexually explicit material available to a four-year-old child (A.D.) to facilitate sexual offences.

The court found the breaches of the Section 161 order to be flagrant and long-standing, and the offence against A.D. to be premeditated and predatory, exploiting her vulnerabilities.

Despite some mitigating factors like a guilty plea for the breach, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, particularly for vulnerable children.

The total sentence imposed was two years less a day of incarceration, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions, a 17-year Section 161 order, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a DNA order.

The judge stressed the importance of a lengthy period of community supervision to ensure rehabilitation and public safety.

The accused, Jaheim Allen-Brown, was convicted of aggravated assault after a trial, for viciously beating his girlfriend, Ms. Greentree, causing lasting disfiguring injuries.

Despite the victim's perjury, overwhelming evidence proved the assault.

Allen-Brown also breached non-communication conditions while in custody.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years incarceration, while the defence sought 12 months less time served.

The court considered Allen-Brown's youth, difficult background, extensive youth criminal record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including being shot and subsequent inadequate medical care in jail).

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, parity, and restraint, and considered the impact of anti-Black racism as per R. v. Morris.

While acknowledging the offence warranted a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years without mitigation, the court imposed a sentence of two years less one day incarceration to allow for a three-year probation period, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The applicant, charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, sought to exclude blood analysis results and medical records obtained via search warrant and production order.

The applicant argued insufficient grounds for the authorizations and an unreasonable manner of search, specifically that the police tested for drugs (THC) when the warrant only specified alcohol.

The court found the authorizations facially valid and the manner of search reasonable, given the broad interpretation of "evidence with respect to the commission of an offence" under the Criminal Code and the specific provisions for testing blood in driving offences.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, a restaurant owner, picked up a 19-year-old prospective employee for a job interview and drove her to his motel room.

He provided her with alcohol and engaged in a series of progressively invasive, unwanted sexual advances, including touching her stomach, unzipping her pants, and kissing her.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory statements, found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The defendant, Isaac Kalejaiye, was found guilty after trial of dangerous operation of a conveyance.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional nature of his dangerous driving (road rage) which caused significant, lasting injuries to multiple victims, and his extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included his mental health issues and proactive steps towards rehabilitation.

The court rejected both the defence's request for an absolute discharge and the Crown's proposed conditional sentence as too lenient, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

A period of incarceration and a significant driving prohibition were deemed necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender's culpability.