Brigid McCallum

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a long-term offender following convictions for violent sexual assaults.

The court evaluated psychiatric and psychological evidence regarding the offender's risk of reoffending, including actuarial tools like the Static-99R.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffence but a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

The offender was designated a long-term offender, sentenced to 6 years in custody, and subjected to a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The offender was convicted of serious sexual offences in both the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown sought Dangerous Offender (DO) and Long Term Offender (LTO) designations in both proceedings.

The offender brought a motion for directions, arguing that issue estoppel should prevent the Crown from litigating the same DO/LTO issues twice based on similar factual records.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that issue estoppel does not apply to individual sentencing decisions and that the Criminal Code explicitly contemplates an offender being subject to multiple LTO designations.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and choking to assist in the commission of a sexual assault involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony, despite inconsistencies regarding intoxication and memory, to be credible on the core facts of non-consensual sexual activity and choking, corroborated by physical injuries and DNA evidence.

The accused's testimony was disbelieved due to contradictions with physical evidence.

The defense of mistake of age was rejected, as the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and was found to be reckless as to her underage status, having ignored "red flags" regarding her appearance and circumstances.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

Mark Moore pleaded guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography and arranging a sexual assault on a child.

The court determined a fit sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the extreme nature of the child pornography, grooming behavior, sexual thoughts about his own daughter, and breach of recognizance.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, remorse, no prior criminal record, community support, and engagement in counseling.

The court also addressed the necessity of a judge viewing child pornography material and the application of "COVID credit" for time served during the pandemic.

A global sentence of 25 months imprisonment was imposed.

A defendant was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, and other associated offences.

The case relied on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, DNA evidence, and the defendant's statement to police.

The court found the defendant's denial and an eyewitness's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies with video evidence.

The judge concluded that the circumstantial evidence, including matching clothing, items, and physical characteristics, left no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, dismissing the innocent explanation as an implausible coincidence.

A similar act application by the Crown was dismissed due to lack of probative value and inconsistencies.

The applicant, facing robbery and firearms charges, sought an adjournment of his trial scheduled for January 4, 2021.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a provincial lockdown, the Chief Justice directed that non-jury matters proceed virtually unless an in-person hearing was absolutely necessary.

The applicant opposed a virtual trial, citing difficulties with his living situation, his counsel's childcare issues, and potential custody issues, and offered to waive his s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that in the specific circumstances, the applicant's right to a fair trial warranted an in-person hearing.

A school principal was charged with assault for restraining a nine-year-old grade four student who was demonstrating disruptive and aggressive behaviour in the schoolyard during lunch period.

The defendant attempted to calm and de-escalate the situation verbally before resorting to a rear restraint technique after exhausting all other options.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant's actions fell within the defence provided by section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the use of reasonable corrective force by educators.

The court found that the defendant's actions were both corrective in purpose and reasonable in degree under the circumstances, and acquitted the defendant.

The accused was arrested at the airport for sexual assault and making child pornography.

During a lengthy police interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to silence and expressed confusion about his rights, but the interviewing officer continued questioning, minimized the allegations, and induced the accused to provide his cell phone password.

The court found the statement was involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The statement and the contents of the cell phone were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2).

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's extreme intoxication and vulnerability, the unprotected intercourse, and the significant impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, difficult upbringing, expressed remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought a time-served sentence of two years less one day, arguing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit due to harsh lockdown conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied a sentencing range of three to five years for serious sexual assault, found a three-year sentence appropriate, and granted pre-sentence custody credit, including an enhanced "Duncan credit" for lockdowns and a small additional credit for limited programming due to COVID-19.

The final sentence was three years in custody, reduced by two years and five months of pre-sentence credit, leaving seven months to serve, followed by two years of probation and several ancillary orders.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, convicted of sexual assault, applied for interim release pending his sentencing hearing under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The application was brought after a prior detention order and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood that the defendant would reoffend, particularly by breaching curfew and committing further serious offences against vulnerable women, given his history of alcohol-related breaches and the nature of his convictions.

The court acknowledged the importance of out-of-custody assessments for sentencing but prioritized public safety.

The accused, Tyler Carter, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two 14-year-old complainants.

A joint submission for a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment followed by three years probation was presented.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainants' age and the multiple acts of sexual interference, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youthfulness at the time of the offence, lack of prior criminal record for these types of offences, and motivation for treatment for complex mental health challenges.

The defence sought additional credit for pre-sentence custody due to COVID-19 risks in prison, which the court denied, finding the joint submission already lenient and further reduction disproportionate.

The court accepted the joint submission and imposed the recommended sentence, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, and communication/proximity prohibitions.

The defence brought a motion for a directed verdict on a charge of making child pornography, arguing that the Crown lacked sufficient evidence for the actus reus without direct documentary proof of the alleged video.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the complainant's testimony, if believed, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to infer that a video depicting explicit sexual activity by a person under 18 was made.

The decision clarified that direct documentary evidence is not an absolute requirement for conviction, as circumstantial evidence can be sufficient.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with a term of a recognizance.

The assault involved striking a vulnerable 66-year-old woman with an extremely low IQ in the face, causing significant bruising and swelling.

Days after release on bail, the offender breached a no-contact condition by approaching the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, with credit for 305 days of pre-sentence custody at the 1.5:1 ratio plus an additional 5 months credit for harsh detention conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in 1 month remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in a parking garage stairwell.

The complainant had consumed alcohol and prescription medication and had no memory of the assault, but awoke to find the accused having non-consensual intercourse with her.

The court found that the complainant was in a state of extreme intoxication and lacked the capacity to consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Patrick Walsh was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault involving forced oral sex and forced vaginal intercourse.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court, making its own factual findings under section 724 of the Criminal Code, confirmed both acts of sexual violence and found the defendant's post-offence conduct (FaceTiming friends and laughing about the victim) to be a serious aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth (22 years old, 20 at the time of offence) and lack of prior criminal record, along with strong family support.

The court dismissed the argument that media coverage constituted a mitigating factor due to insufficient evidence of exceptional public shaming.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of two years in a penitentiary, along with several ancillary orders.

The offender was convicted of ten counts of fraud and one count of defrauding the public, involving the sale of fictitious shares in gold mining companies to unsophisticated investors.

The total fraud exceeded $1.1 million.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, finding that the principles of denunciation and deterrence required a significant penitentiary term given the magnitude, duration, and devastating impact of the fraud on vulnerable victims.

The court also ordered full restitution of $1,100,799 and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the quantity of alcohol in her blood was over the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while there was a minor technical breach of section 8 regarding the requirement to exit the vehicle, the more serious breaches involved violations of section 10(b) rights to counsel.

The police failed to provide timely notice of rights to counsel at the roadside and failed to exercise adequate diligence in facilitating access to counsel of choice at the police station, instead channelling the defendant to duty counsel.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Following his conviction for multiple counts of fraud, the accused applied to reopen his trial prior to sentencing to introduce new evidence.

The proposed evidence was his passport, which contained a visa stamp he claimed supported his alibi that he was in St. Kitts when some of the fraudulent transactions occurred.

The court applied the Palmer test for the admission of fresh evidence and dismissed the application.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the due diligence requirement and, more importantly, lacked sufficient importance, as the visa stamp did not prove the accused's physical presence in St. Kitts at the relevant times and would not have affected the trial's outcome or the court's adverse credibility findings against him.

The applicant, charged with 11 counts of fraud, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued the delay was justified due to the case's complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court agreed, finding the volume of disclosure, number of witnesses, and nature of the fraud allegations made the case particularly complex.

Alternatively, the court found transitional exceptional circumstances applied, as the Crown reasonably relied on the previous law and the applicant's actions contributed to the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused, Jigme Yeshi and Yeshi Wang Chuk, were jointly charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following a bar altercation.

The critical issues were identity and party liability.

The court found that Jamal Graham instigated an initial exchange, after which Yeshi Wang Chuk produced a knife and, with Jigme Yeshi, pursued and attacked Graham and Sheanna Williams, causing serious stab wounds.

The court relied on eyewitness testimony and photo array identifications, despite witness intoxication and memory discrepancies.

Both accused were convicted of aggravated assault, with other charges stayed under the Kienapple principle.