Brenda V. Sandulak

The accused pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent after uploading a consensually created sexual video to a public pornography website.

The court held that the offence is simultaneously a sexual offence, a privacy offence, and a form of gender-based violence, and accepted the profound and enduring harm suffered by the complainant.

Applying proportionality, restraint for youthful first offenders, and the statutory criteria for a conditional sentence, the court found this was the rare case where denunciation and general deterrence could be met without jail.

A one-year conditional sentence order followed by two years' probation was imposed, and a SOIRA order was declined.

The defendant, Keenan George, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his brother, Kegan, during an argument over household cleanliness.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years in penitentiary, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found the offence to be serious, driven by anger, and not mitigated by alcohol or drugs.

Considering the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 41 months imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody, deeming a conditional sentence inappropriate given the severity of the crime.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two young girls.

The offences occurred over several years, and the defendant later self-disclosed his misconduct.

The court considered the principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, giving primary consideration to the protection of children as per R. v. Friesen.

Despite the mitigating factor of self-disclosure, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severe impact on the victims, as conveyed in their victim impact statements.

A custodial sentence was deemed necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offences and the harm caused.

The applicant, Sisto Seven Marquette, brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging breaches of his rights under s. 9 (arbitrary detention), s. 10(b) (rights to counsel), and s. 8 (search and seizure) following a roadside traffic stop.

He sought the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breaches.

It held that police questioning during the traffic stop was within permissible highway-related purposes, the right to counsel was superseded by the requirement to provide a breath sample forthwith, and subsequent searches of his vehicle and person were lawful incidents to arrest.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking exclusion of heroin, cash, and a digital scale discovered during a warrantless arrest and vehicle search, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Police had acted on a confidential informant’s tip alleging heroin trafficking from a vehicle and conducted two days of surveillance documenting multiple brief stops, short interactions with individuals, and what an officer described as a hand‑to‑hand exchange at a residence associated with a heroin user.

The court assessed the reliability of the tip and the police observations under the totality of the circumstances and the reasonable grounds standard under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code.

Although individual observations might have been consistent with innocent conduct, the pattern of repeated brief stops and interactions corroborated the tip and provided objectively reasonable grounds for arrest.

Because the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was also lawful and the evidence was admissible.