Brianne Juliette Bovell

The court sentenced Fahmid Iqbal, a youthful first offender, for possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

After a detailed review of the facts, mitigating and aggravating factors, and relevant case law, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community under strict conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The decision discusses the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence in the circumstances.

This decision addresses the constitutionality and application of ss. 42(5)(a) and 42(2)(p) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which restrict Deferred Custody and Supervision Orders (DCSO) for young persons convicted of indecent acts causing bodily harm.

The court found these provisions violate sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared them invalid.

The sentencing reflects the offender’s diminished moral blameworthiness as a young person at the time of the offence, despite his current age and serious health issues.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day DCSO, exceeding the statutory 6-month limit, to ensure proportionality and community denunciation.

This decision addresses the constitutionality of ss. 42(2)(p) and 42(5)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), which restrict the availability and duration of Deferred Custody Supervision Orders (DCSO) for young persons convicted of offences causing or attempting serious bodily harm.

The court found these provisions violate sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying young persons access to a fit and appropriate sentence comparable to adults' Conditional Sentence Orders (CSO).

The court followed the precedent set in R. v. T.M., striking down the impugned provisions and removing the six-month limitation on DCSOs.

In a criminal case involving sexual assault charges against a physiotherapist, the defence brought a motion for directions regarding Crown disclosure of private records.

The central issue was whether documents disclosed by the Crown required an admissibility hearing under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code, or if Crown disclosure implied a full waiver of privacy interests by the complainant.

The court, Molloy J., affirmed the binding nature of prior Superior Court decisions (R. v. J.K., R. v. Martiuk) which established a presumption that Crown disclosure constitutes a full waiver, negating the need for a s. 278.92 hearing.

However, the judge found that in this specific case, the Crown had failed to obtain proper, informed waivers from the complainants.

This lack of valid waivers constituted "evidence to the contrary," rebutting the presumption.

Consequently, the court ruled that admissibility hearings under s. 278.92 would indeed be required for the disclosed records.

This decision addresses a Charter application and sentencing for an individual found guilty of committing an indecent act and exposing his genitals to a child for a sexual purpose.

The Charter application, alleging ss. 7 and 8 violations due to a Level-2 search conducted while the defendant was in his underwear, was dismissed.

The court found the search was a lawful incident to arrest, justified by safety concerns and police policy, and conducted reasonably given the defendant's choice of attire.

For sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors including the persistent nature of the offences in the presence of multiple children, significant victim impact, and the offender's lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, steady employment, willingness to attend counselling, and collateral immigration consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days jail, two years probation, a DNA order, and a three-year prohibition order from public swimming areas and positions of trust with persons under 16.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference contrary to s. 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved sexual touching and fellatio with a 14-year-old complainant when the accused was 20 years old.

The conduct occurred between September 2017 and October 2017 at a church where both parties attended.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with an initial three-month period of virtual house arrest, followed by probation.

The sentencing decision balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence against significant mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, successful completion of counselling, and low risk of reoffence.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including two knife confrontations with co-tenants and landlord complaints leading to an eviction notice.

The accused conceded the admissibility of a recent knife confrontation with the deceased but opposed other incidents.

The court ruled that an earlier knife incident with other co-tenants (McDonald and Augustine) was inadmissible due to its minimal probative value, stemming from inconsistent witness testimony, and high prejudicial effect, including risks of moral and reasoning prejudice.

Similarly, evidence of general complaints received by the landlord prior to the immediate pre-stabbing events was deemed inadmissible for similar reasons, while evidence related to the immediate pre-stabbing conflict and eviction notice was allowed.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences including assault, assault with a weapon, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, choking, unlawful confinement, breach of recognizance, and mischief, all arising from a protracted campaign of domestic abuse against his former domestic partner and mother of his child between January 2016 and May 2017.

The accused absconded and did not attend sentencing.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day custody with 3 years probation, with consecutive sentences on the most serious counts (sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement).

The sentence reflects the serious nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, the duration and escalating pattern of abuse, and the presence of children during some incidents.