Brian C. Eberdt

The defendant, Jesse Bleck, was found guilty by a jury of failing to stop at an accident causing bodily harm and driving while prohibited.

The victim sustained catastrophic injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior driving record and defiance of court orders, and mitigating factors, such as his age, role as a primary caregiver, and pre-trial detention conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the high moral blameworthiness and the legislative intent for harsher penalties for such offenses.

A global sentence of 54 months (4.5 years) imprisonment was imposed, along with driving prohibitions and other ancillary orders.

The appellant, Richard Jackman, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and attempted extortion, as well as his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The appeal raised issues regarding the rejection of his not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR) defense, the consideration of treatability at the dangerous offender designation stage, and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal tests, reasonably rejected the NCR defense, properly considered treatability in the dangerous offender analysis, and reasonably imposed an indeterminate sentence given the appellant's poor prospects for treatability and risk to the public.

A.G. was found guilty of five criminal charges, including assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement against D.H. The court considered aggravating factors such as intimate partner violence, breach of trust, and the severe impact on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first-offender status, and significant delay in sentencing.

The Crown sought 7 years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years for the September 2017 offences and two months consecutive for an August 2017 assault, totaling five years and two months, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the seriousness of the crimes.

The accused, A.G., was charged with five counts including assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and sexual assault.

The trial involved a "she said, he said" scenario, with the Crown relying on the complainant's testimony bolstered by four pieces of independent confirmatory evidence: a text message apology for a bite, a hole in the wall, surveillance video, and extensive bruising on the complainant's body.

The defence argued self-defence and challenged the complainant's credibility.

The court found the defendant's explanations implausible and the confirmatory evidence substantial, leading to a finding of guilt on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondent was charged with abduction and violent sexual assault of two women in 1986.

He fled Canada in violation of bail conditions and assumed a false identity in the United States, where he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 52 years imprisonment.

Following his deportation to Canada in 2015, he was charged and sought a stay of proceedings alleging violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The trial judge granted the stay, characterizing the delay as Crown delay.

The Crown appealed, arguing that the delay caused by the respondent's flight should be treated as defence delay and deducted from the total delay calculation.

Five appellants convicted of drug-related offences appealed their convictions, challenging the application judge's admission of evidence obtained pursuant to wiretap authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants argued that the application judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by failing to adequately recognize the impact of prior police misconduct and by not giving appropriate effect to findings of serious carelessness in the affidavits.

Ba Tuan Tran also appealed his sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding the application judge's analysis fair, balanced, and correct.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual interference with an 11-year-old child.

The respondent, then 25 years old, had befriended the victim, engaged in grooming behaviour via text and telephone, and subsequently raped her.

The trial judge sentenced him to 30 months' imprisonment with 15 months credit for presentence custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to give proper effect to the principles of deterrence and denunciation, by failing to recognize that the respondent had sought out a young girl, and by failing to consider the significant impact of the offence on the victim as a separate aggravating circumstance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and increased the sentence to 33 months' imprisonment (resulting in an effective sentence of 4 years after credit for presentence custody).

Brennan Nicholas, charged with first-degree murder, applied to vary a non-communication order made by a Justice of the Peace, which prohibited him from communicating with his mother and other family members.

The Crown consented to removing siblings and cousins but maintained the prohibition against the mother, Denise Desormeaux, citing past interference with justice.

The court found the original order was made without jurisdiction under s. 516(2) of the Criminal Code, and should have been made under s. 515(12), which is reviewable.

On the merits, the court found no compelling reason to maintain the non-communication order against the mother, noting her protective actions were understandable given the accused's youth, mental health issues, and Indigenous heritage, and that she posed no risk of interfering with the current proceedings.

The application to vary the order was granted, allowing communication with his mother.

The accused was charged with four counts of assault and one count of uttering a threat to cause death in relation to his former wife.

The court dismissed all assault counts by agreement of counsel.

The court also dismissed the uttering a threat charge, finding that the complainant's evidence was vague and lacked essential detail regarding the exact wording of the alleged threat.

The court noted the accused was highly intoxicated at the time and found the complainant had a potential motive to exaggerate her account in order to have the accused removed from the house.

All charges were dismissed as not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.