Brendan Neil

The accused, Cassandra Bell, pleaded guilty to one count of assault under s. 265(1) of the Criminal Code, a lesser charge than the original sexual exploitation and uttering threats charges.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's young age (8-9 years old), the repeated touching of the victim's groin area (5-7 times over clothing), the significant emotional harm to the victim and his family, and the fact the offence occurred in the child's home.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, its timing, the accused's deafness, community support, and counselling.

The Crown sought a 6-month conditional sentence, while the Defence sought probation or a 90-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons ban, emphasizing the need for denunciation despite the plea to a common assault.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life, uttering death threats, break and enter, and disobeying a court order, all committed against his separated spouse.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the highly aggravating domestic context and the planned nature of the arson.

The court imposed a global sentence of 77 months in custody, reduced to 23 months net after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

This motion concerned an application by the accused, Robert Scott Musson, under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to and production of two sets of youth records: one related to an alleged "stranger assault" in 1997 and another related to a break and enter at Dr. Musson's home in 1998, involving the complainant A.L. and witness L.W. The court dismissed access to the 1997 "stranger assault" records, finding that a police caution constituted an extrajudicial measure under the YCJA, making section 119(4) applicable and precluding access.

For the 1998 break and enter records, the court found that Dr. Musson met the test under section 123 of the YCJA for access, demonstrating a valid and substantial interest and necessity in the interest of justice.

However, due to the nature of the allegations against Dr. Musson (sexual offences), the court ruled that the Mills regime applied, requiring a separate application under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code for actual production of these records, which were ordered to remain under seal.

The accused, C.M., brought a pre-trial application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The application sought to admit a photograph, alleged conversations about sexual preferences (including physical restraint), and alleged prior sexual activity involving restraint.

The Crown conceded the admissibility of the photograph.

The court dismissed the application for the remaining evidence, finding no "air of reality" to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent based on the accused's own voir dire testimony, which indicated he sought and received explicit consent.

The court emphasized that the central issue was actual consent, not mistaken belief, and that the proposed evidence was not relevant to the live defence or necessary for full answer and defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her three-year-old son by striking him multiple times on the buttocks, causing extensive bruising, and grabbing him by the face while screaming at him.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a suspended sentence with three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge for three years with conditions including curfew, probation supervision, participation in counselling and anger management programs, and restrictions on contact with the child except as authorized by the Children's Aid Society or family court order.

The court also imposed ancillary orders for DNA collection and a five-year weapons prohibition.

Two young persons, H.C. and I.S., were jointly charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence in the death of K.P., who was shot with a sawed-off shotgun on July 13, 2018, in Oakville.

H.C. was the owner of the prohibited firearm.

I.S. was charged with various firearm-related offences.

The Crown's theory was that I.S. pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without knowing it was loaded, and that H.C. had loaded it earlier without informing others.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the principal Crown witness, C.A., who was present at the scene.

The court found that while H.C. was guilty of manslaughter by criminal negligence based on his failure to safely store the firearm and ammunition, I.S. could not be convicted of the manslaughter charges due to reasonable doubt regarding who actually fired the weapon.

I.S. was convicted of unauthorized possession of a firearm and careless use of a firearm, and pled guilty to obstructing justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between August 26 and October 19, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence of imprisonment and imposed a custodial sentence of seven months (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the accused had mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, and strong family support, the serious nature of the offence—involving over 7,900 images and 64 videos depicting young children in explicit sexual acts—required denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for ten years, a ten-year section 161 order restricting contact with children and internet use, a five-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized computers.

The accused was charged with two counts of break and enter with sexual assault.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from the first complainant and DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette butt found near the second residence.

The accused denied the allegations and testified that he was at home sleeping at the time of the offences.

The court found that while the first complainant made a positive identification, there were significant frailties in the identification evidence and alternative suspects with stronger circumstantial connections to the crimes.

The DNA evidence, while probative, could not establish when the cigarette butt was smoked.

The court concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault committed on September 20, 2015, at a bar in Burlington.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including bleeding on the brain, a ruptured right eye, and a detached lens, resulting in permanent loss of sight in one eye.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody and three years probation, balancing the serious nature of the offence and devastating injuries against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The defendant pleaded guilty to mischief, assault, threatening bodily harm, criminal harassment, and breaching a Youth Justice Court probation order, all committed against a minor victim between September 2013 and February 2014.

The offences involved a pattern of controlling and abusive behaviour in a dating relationship, including physical assault, property damage, threats, and distribution of intimate images.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of time served (59 days credited), one day of imprisonment, a six-month conditional sentence, and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and a 20-metre exclusion zone.

A DNA order and ten-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The accused were charged with assault arising from an incident at a wedding reception and subsequent altercation in a hotel room.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant, the fiancée of one accused and sister of the other, testified that she was assaulted by both defendants.

The trial judge found the defendants guilty of assault on count one (assault in the hotel room), found the male defendant not guilty of assault on count two (assault at the reception), and found the female defendant guilty of resisting arrest.

The judgment turned on credibility assessments and the distinction between verbal abuse and physical assault.

The accused was convicted after trial of three counts of assault against his common-law spouse.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 60 to 90 days, while defence counsel sought time served and/or a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment of four months to be served in the community, with the first 60 days subject to house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

A firearms prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code was also imposed for five years.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's lack of prior criminal record, good prospects for rehabilitation, and the circumstances of the offences, which occurred during a period of significant personal stress.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault against his spouse.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant testified at trial that she did not remember the assaultive behaviour, but the Crown was permitted to cross-examine her with her prior videotaped statement to police and to admit that statement into evidence.

The accused testified that he did not assault the complainant on any occasion.

The trial judge found the complainant's videotaped statement to be compelling and credible, noting the absence of motive to fabricate, the proximity in time to the events, the detailed and uninterrupted narrative, and the complainant's physical demeanour during the interview.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be unbelievable and internally inconsistent.

The trial judge convicted the accused on all three counts.

The offender was sentenced for breach of a conditional sentence order.

The offender failed to report to his supervisor as required by the terms of his conditional sentence.

The court found the breach was without reasonable excuse and imposed a custodial sentence of 20 days, with the conditional sentence order to resume upon release without modification.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with conditional sentence terms and the deterrent effect of potential incarceration.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault involving the same complainant.

The Crown called the complainant as a witness, but she testified that she had no memory of the assaultive behaviour.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made by the complainant to police, which contained detailed descriptions of the alleged assaults.

The Crown also sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including prior assaults and property damage.

The trial judge admitted the videotaped statement as hearsay evidence based on necessity and reliability, but rejected the application to introduce evidence of prior conduct, finding insufficient probative value.

The offender pleaded guilty to ten offences including possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of prohibited devices, assault, mischief, theft under $5,000, refuse breath demand, fail to attend court, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence for the firearms offence, which carried a mandatory minimum at the time of the offences.

However, the Court of Appeal decisions in R. v. Nur and R. v. Smickle, released one day before trial, declared the mandatory minimum unconstitutional.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months plus 11 months pretrial custody credit, followed by three years probation, finding the offender's firearm possession fell closer to the regulatory end of the spectrum despite aggravating factors related to his alcohol addiction and domestic violence.

The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that a warrantless search of the residence constituted a breach of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that while a breach occurred, the police acted in good faith based on legitimate public safety concerns arising from a volatile domestic dispute involving references to a firearm.

Applying the section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis from R v. Grant, the court balanced the seriousness of the police conduct, the impact on the accused's privacy interests, and society's interest in adjudicating the case.

The court concluded that admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and admitted the evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily, making the maximum sentence 18 months imprisonment with a minimum of 14 days.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's youthful age (19), lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, engagement in counselling, relatively small collection of images (28 unique pictures), and absence of distribution or evidence of pedophilia.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence of 14-90 days.

The court imposed 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by 3 years probation with conditions including psychiatric assessment.