Brock Jones

This ruling addresses a disclosure application in a sexual assault case.

The accused sought records from municipal by-law officers who initially investigated the incident.

The defence argued these were first-party disclosure, while the Crown contended they were third-party records requiring a Mills application due to the complainant's privacy interests.

The court found that the records, created by municipal peace officers investigating the same incident that led to criminal charges, constituted first-party disclosure.

The complainant's privacy interests did not displace the accused's right to presumptively relevant material from the investigation.

The records were ordered to be vetted and disclosed by the Crown under its Stinchcombe obligations.

This is a sentencing judgment for Kemar Clarke, who was found guilty of criminal harassment and failing to comply with a probation order.

The victim, a 17-year-old girl, was harassed and followed into her school.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the sexual nature of the harassment, and the offence occurring on school property.

The court also considered the offender's severe mental health issues and history of non-compliance with treatment.

Despite the Crown's request for a nine-month jail sentence, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, noting that the offender had already served the equivalent of an 18-month jail sentence with pre-sentence custody credit.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also issued.

Cory Beale pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, failure to comply with a release order (no weapons), failure to comply with SOIRA, assault peace officer, and failure to comply with a release order (curfew).

The aggravated assault involved striking an elderly man with a machete.

The Crown sought 5.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the unprovoked nature of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, and the offender's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, recent rehabilitative efforts, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years' incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes and breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and the challenges of SOIRA compliance for vulnerable individuals.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault with a weapon.

The offender had a 30-year criminal record involving 16 violent offences, largely driven by intractable substance abuse.

The court considered psychiatric evidence indicating a high likelihood of violent recidivism and rejected arguments that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Despite considering the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's life, the court found the risk of future violence unmanageable in the community.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

Kemar Clarke was charged with criminal harassment by repeatedly following the complainant, M.R., and breaching a probation order.

The court found M.R.'s testimony credible and reliable despite some discrepancies in eyewitness identification.

The court determined that the defendant's conduct constituted "repeatedly following" for criminal harassment purposes and that the defendant knew he was harassing the complainant.

Furthermore, the court found the defendant was the same person named in the prior probation order, and the presumption of judicial regularity applied regarding his knowledge of the probation terms, despite the order not being signed.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

This is a sentencing decision for Zlalame Alemu, who was found guilty of multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, residential break and enter, mischief, and threatening a peace officer.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked attacks, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, including prior convictions for similar offences.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expression of remorse and his difficult life experiences, including systemic anti-Black racism and mental health issues, as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report and an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court applied principles from R. v. Morris regarding anti-Black racism and R. v. Hills regarding conditions of incarceration.

While acknowledging the impact of systemic racism, the court found it did not significantly reduce moral culpability for these specific violent offences given the accused's recidivism and lack of engagement with past rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 30 months, which, after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and substantial mitigation for incarceration conditions, resulted in one further day in custody, followed by a three-year probation order.

The offender, Tiago Vieira-Paulino, pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including unprovoked knife attacks on strangers and intimate partner violence and child abuse against his partner and her three young children.

The Crown sought an eight-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought six months less a day, primarily to avoid immigration consequences.

The court rejected the proposed sentence as manifestly inadequate, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, particularly for intimate partner violence and child abuse, and the gravity of unprovoked stranger assaults with a weapon.

A global sentence of two years less a day in custody, followed by three years' probation, was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Mario Rodriguez brought an application under Charter section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling by 56 days.

The Crown argued for three periods of defence delay to be deducted.

The court found 65 days of delay attributable to defence counsel's inefficiency in setting trial dates, reducing the net delay below the 18-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied.

The accused, Richard Flaumenbaum, applied to stay proceedings for assault and sexual assault, alleging a violation of his Charter section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 22 months and 8 days, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial court.

The court analyzed periods of delay, attributing significant portions to late Crown disclosure of crucial evidence (complainant's second videotaped statement and legible SAEK notes) and institutional delay due to lack of court time.

The defence's mid-trial Mills application was deemed legitimate and not defence delay.

After deducting 29 days for defence delay (late arrival at JPT) and 60 days for an exceptional circumstance (Crown counsel's illness), the net delay remained 19 months and 6 days.

The court found a Charter violation and entered a stay of proceedings.

In a sexual assault trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of the complainant's Apple Watch data, which recorded sleep activity.

The defence argued an expert was required to interpret the data.

The court held that data automatically generated by a personal electronic device is computer by-product evidence, not hearsay, and generally does not require expert testimony for admissibility.

The complainant's testimony was deemed sufficient to authenticate the data under section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act, with its ultimate weight to be determined at trial.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, robbery, possession of stolen property, and breach of probation against the accused, Charles Waddling-Leeson.

The complainant, Ms. A.A., testified to a non-consensual sexual assault in a university washroom, including choking, threats of a knife, and bodily harm, followed by the theft of her iPhone.

The accused claimed the sexual encounter was consensual and pre-arranged via Tinder.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of both the complainant and the accused, considering DNA evidence, video surveillance, and legal principles regarding memory frailties in trauma victims and the caution against stereotypical reasoning in sexual assault cases.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable on the core issues of consent, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the accused's version of events due to significant contradictions with the evidence.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown applied for a sexual assault complainant to testify with the aid of a trained support dog.

The defence did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding jurisdiction based on its inherent authority to control its own process and the rights afforded to victims under section 13 of the Victim's Bill of Rights Act.

The ruling emphasized a non-rigid interpretation of testimonial aid provisions to ensure witnesses can provide full and candid accounts of traumatic events.

Cody Rodgers pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The victim, Ms. A.C., was violently assaulted and sexually assaulted in her own apartment, suffering severe physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors including the brutal nature of the assault, the home invasion aspect, and the fact that the offender was on a release order for another sexual assault at the time.

Mitigating factors included his youth, early guilty plea, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The court also addressed Gladue principles and mental health/substance abuse as potential mitigating factors, ultimately finding limited applicability given the severity of the crime and lack of a direct causal link.

The judge imposed a sentence of 9 years' incarceration, which, after credit for pre-sentence custody (including adjustments for time served on another sentence and lockdown conditions), resulted in a net sentence of 5 years and 318 days, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused, David Crowe, was sentenced after being found guilty of criminal harassment, harassing communications, mischief, and multiple breaches of probation and release orders.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years less a day in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence.

The court considered the severe and long-lasting impact on the victim, the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence, the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the harassment, and the repeated breaches of court orders.

Despite these aggravating factors, the court also weighed the accused's significant and genuine efforts at rehabilitation since his arrest, including sobriety and community engagement.

Ultimately, the court imposed concurrent conditional sentence orders of four months for the breaches and sixty days for impersonation, followed by a three-year probation order, noting that the accused had already served the equivalent of an 18-month sentence for the harassment counts through pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A DNA order and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused, Abdullah Hotaki, charged with sexual assault and assault, brought a Charter s. 11(b) motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 18 months and 25 days, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found the delay was primarily caused by the Crown's failure to provide core disclosure promptly, despite diligent efforts by defence counsel.

The Crown's arguments regarding implied waiver and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic were rejected as insufficient to justify the delay.

A stay of proceedings was entered on all counts.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under section 119(1)(q) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access youth records pertaining to the complainant's outstanding criminal charges.

The court held that youth records relating to outstanding charges are disclosable to the defence to make full answer and defence, as the access period begins when the record is created.

The application was granted on consent, allowing the matter to proceed to a third-party records application under the Criminal Code.

The accused, Ricardo Charleston, brought an application to exclude evidence, including statements made to police and observations of the complainant's injuries, alleging violations of his Charter rights (sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2)) and involuntariness of statements.

The court found that police failed to inform Mr. Charleston of his right to counsel and the reason for his detention at multiple points, and conducted a warrantless search of his residence that was not justified by exigent circumstances due to delays and available alternatives.

Consequently, all statements made by Mr. Charleston after he was detained (10:38 pm) and the police observations of the complainant's injuries from the warrantless search were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, statements made before his detention (before 9:07 pm) were found voluntary and admissible, and the complainant remains able to testify about her own injuries.

The defendant, charged with sexual assault, brought a motion for directions regarding the admissibility of text messages exchanged with the complainant.

The defence argued these messages, which depicted a different relationship dynamic, did not engage the Criminal Code's record screening regime (sections 278.92-94) as they lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Crown argued for caution regarding the complainant's privacy rights.

The court granted the defence motion, finding the text messages contained "mundane information" and thus did not meet the threshold for privacy under the record screening regime, allowing their potential introduction at trial without a formal application.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a prohibited firearm without a licence after police found three prohibited firearms and ammunition carelessly stored in his home.

The Crown sought 4-6 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearms offences, noting the danger posed to the community and the offender's family.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years' custody, reduced by 4 months for time spent on strict house arrest bail conditions and 8 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years, 7 months, and 22 days.

The two accused were charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, robbery, and attempted murder, following a violent altercation captured on video surveillance.

The court found the Crown proved the identity of the larger suspect.

The primary accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault, as his self-defence claim was rejected due to disproportionate force.

The co-accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, and assault with a weapon as a party, but acquitted of aggravated assault due to evidence of abandonment.

Both were acquitted of robbery and attempted murder.