Brock Jones

The accused, R.R., was sentenced for sexual assault and voyeurism.

The victim, T.L., became intoxicated and passed out, at which point R.R. sexually assaulted her, including brief anal penetration, and then took a surreptitious photograph of her naked breasts.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, betrayal of trust, and the objectification inherent in the voyeurism, alongside mitigating factors like the offender's lack of prior record, rehabilitative potential, and collateral consequences from public shaming.

The court imposed a global sentence of 36 months custody (30 months for sexual assault, 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and declining a conditional sentence due to the high moral culpability and significant victim impact.

The accused, Nikolas Morello, was charged with assault against his intimate partner, Megan Charette.

The case involved conflicting testimonies, issues of credibility, and video evidence.

The court found Ms. Charette's testimony to be inconsistent and manipulative, raising serious doubts about her credibility.

While the video showed some physical contact, the court could not ascertain the accused's intent with the required certainty.

The defence of property argument was also briefly addressed, with the court emphasizing caution in applying it in intimate partner violence contexts.

The accused was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought an application to admit three prior out-of-court statements made by the deceased victim, Peter Kostopoulos, for the truth of their contents under the principled approach to hearsay.

The victim had been assaulted and died months later.

While necessity was conceded due to the victim's death, the court assessed threshold reliability.

The court found significant concerns regarding the reliability of the statements, including inconsistencies in the victim's descriptions of assailants and events, vague eyewitness details, a possible language barrier, and a potential motive to lie due to animus towards "homeless people." Furthermore, video evidence contradicted parts of the victim's statements, particularly regarding his own actions during the altercation.

The court concluded that the alternative explanations for the statements' accuracy or truthfulness could not be ruled out, and admitting them would impede the defence's ability to challenge the evidence.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

The accused, Khanij Chopra, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance, "over 80," and possession of a controlled substance.

The defense filed a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude breath samples and the controlled substance.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's utterances.

The court found significant Charter breaches due to prolonged unlawful detention and denial of the right to counsel, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples and the controlled substance under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "over 80" and possession charges.

For the impaired operation charge, the court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment at the time police located the accused, leading to an acquittal on that count as well.

The accused, Jennifer McKinley, was charged with criminal harassment, failing to comply with a release order, and assaulting a peace officer.

She pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The trial proceeded on the remaining charges.

The court found the accused guilty of criminal harassment, concluding she repeatedly communicated with the complainant, causing him reasonable fear for his safety, despite being explicitly told to stop.

However, the court found her not guilty of assaulting a peace officer due to reasonable doubt regarding her intent during the arrest.

The accused, Krishyanth Kugarajah, was charged with two counts of sexual assault, and one count each of assault, forcible entry, forcible confinement, and uttering a death threat.

The complainant, P.K., testified about repeated acts of sexual and physical violence.

The court found P.K.'s testimony credible and reliable, supported by DNA evidence and an independent witness.

The accused's testimony was found illogical and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence's arguments regarding the definition of "real property" for forcible entry and the sufficiency of confinement for forcible confinement.

Kugarajah was found guilty on all counts.

Peter Burrill pleaded guilty to ten criminal charges, including theft, possession of break-in instruments, assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and robbery.

The Crown sought an 11-month sentence, while the defence proposed a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's significant criminal record, and the Gladue principles, noting his displacement from Indigenous heritage due to the Sixties Scoop.

The court also addressed the impact of punitive pre-trial detention conditions and the Ministry's policy allowing intermittent sentences to be served at home via temporary absence permits (TAP).

The court ultimately imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for robbery and suspended sentences with two years' probation for the other counts, along with a lifetime section 109 order and a DNA order.

The accused, V.Z., facing sexual assault charges, brought a Stage 1 application under Criminal Code sections 276, 278.92, and 278.93 to admit evidence of prior sexual activity and text messages with the complainant.

The defence argued this evidence was relevant to the issues of consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent, particularly regarding a pattern of consensual role-playing and rough sexual behaviour.

The Crown opposed, arguing insufficient detail and that past consent does not imply future consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding actual consent but granted a Stage 2 hearing (voir dire) for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding the proposed evidence capable of being admissible for that purpose, provided a proper affidavit from the accused is filed.

A.M. was charged with sexual assault, mischief, assault, and threatening.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The trial centered on the credibility of the complainant (K.J.) and the accused (A.M.).

The court found A.M.'s testimony to be credible and logical, corroborated in part by another witness (C.F.).

K.J.'s testimony, however, was found to have serious difficulties, including repeated claims of inability to recall details, significant inconsistencies between her testimony and prior statements, and embellishments.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and A.M. was found not guilty of all charges.

R.R. was charged with sexual assault and voyeurism stemming from events where the complainant, T.L., became heavily intoxicated at R.R.'s dance studio.

T.L. testified that R.R. sexually assaulted her while she feigned sleep and later took a surreptitious photo of her breasts.

R.R. denied the allegations, offering alternative explanations for his actions and the social media messages exchanged.

The court found T.L.'s evidence credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected R.R.'s testimony as implausible and contradictory.

R.R. was found guilty of both sexual assault and voyeurism, as the court concluded T.L. did not consent and R.R. acted with the requisite intent and in circumstances where T.L. had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Christopher Navas pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought a conditional discharge with probation and a DNA order, while the defence argued for an absolute discharge and opposed the DNA order.

The court granted an absolute discharge, finding that Mr. Navas's offending behaviour was linked to significant mental health challenges and that he had made exemplary progress in rehabilitation, rendering a probation order unnecessary and a longer record retention period disproportionate.

The court also declined to impose a DNA order, considering the minor nature of the breach, the offender's lack of prior criminal record, and his rehabilitation efforts.

This ruling addresses a Leaney application by the Crown to admit a police officer's opinion evidence regarding the identity of the accused from surveillance video footage.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding the officer sufficiently familiar with one accused (Siddiqui) to offer an opinion.

The application was granted for high-quality video footage from a school portable but denied for poor-quality video from the East York Town Centre, emphasizing that video quality is a crucial factor for admissibility of recognition evidence.

The accused, Curtis Beckles, was tried on two counts of failing to comply with a probation order by not reporting as directed.

The Crown argued the accused knowingly or recklessly breached the order.

The defence contended that transportation issues and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable excuse or negated mens rea.

The court applied the subjective mens rea standard from R. v. Zora, finding that the Crown proved the accused's knowledge and intent.

The court dismissed the "reasonable excuse" defence, noting a lack of evidentiary support for the claims, and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.