Brock Jones

The offender, a police officer of Indigenous descent, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for conducting unauthorized searches on police databases and sharing the information with an acquaintance.

The court considered the offender's severe addiction issues, PTSD from his policing career, and his disconnection from his Indigenous heritage as significant Gladue factors.

Finding that the offence was an aberration and that a conviction was not necessary for general deterrence, the court granted an absolute discharge.

The accused, C.T., charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion for directions seeking a ruling that photos and videos in his possession, taken in close temporal proximity to the alleged assault, fall outside the protections of section 276 (evidence of other sexual activity) and section 278.91 (private records) of the Criminal Code.

The court ruled that the materials were exempt from sections 276 and 278.92-94, finding they did not constitute 'sexual activity' under section 276 or 'private records' under section 278.91, as they were integrally connected to the alleged assault and the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

The court also addressed the procedure for such motions, including complainant participation and disclosure to the Crown, and declined to issue an order restricting the Crown from discussing the motion's contents with the complainant.

The accused, Christian Bolemwa, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

During the trial, a Charter application was brought alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to detain and arrest the accused, and that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were not violated.

Regarding section 10(b), the court determined that the accused's circumstances did not constitute "special circumstances" requiring enhanced police diligence, as he indicated understanding his rights and was provided French-speaking duty counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of both counts, concluding that his ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting mental health concerns as a plausible alternative explanation for his behavior.

Joshua Carr was sentenced for assault with a weapon, assault, and wilfully causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, all committed within an intimate partner relationship.

The offences included physical abuse of the victim, Ursula-Marie Nippard, one incident occurring in the presence of Carr's children, and the killing of Ms. Nippard's pet dog by throwing it from an 11th-story balcony.

Carr absconded prior to sentencing, which proceeded in absentia.

The court emphasized the aggravating nature of intimate partner violence and animal cruelty, particularly when used to exert control.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and remorse for the animal cruelty.

The court imposed a total sentence of 20 months custody, reduced by pre-sentence credit, resulting in 18 months and 6 days remaining, along with a 3-year probation, DNA orders, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a 25-year animal ownership ban, and a $7,500 restitution order.

David Hercules was found guilty of four counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentencing was delayed due to administrative errors and legal uncertainty regarding conditional sentences, which was resolved by the enactment of Bill C-5.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court denied a discharge, emphasizing the public interest in denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes.

Balancing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the harm caused with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, first-time offender status, and the legislative intent of Bill C-5 to address systemic over-incarceration, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a weapon prohibition.

The accused, Keenan Kawall, brought a mid-trial Charter application to exclude photographic evidence obtained by police without consent and subsequently used with facial recognition software to identify him.

The defence argued the photographs violated his Section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, particularly in light of Ontario Regulation 58/16 (the "street check" regulation) and the potential for future invasive technological use.

The Crown argued no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in a public space and the regulation did not apply.

The court found that while the officer violated O. Reg. 58/16 by arbitrarily collecting identifying information, Mr. Kawall's Section 8 Charter rights were not engaged because he had a diminished expectation of privacy in a public space, and the photographs did not reveal core biographical information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Krishyanth Kugarajah, was sentenced for two counts of sexual assault, forcible entry, assault, threatening death, and forcible confinement against a vulnerable international student.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, repeated assaults, threats of deportation, and the assaults occurring in her home.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and mental health concerns, though the latter were not found to be causally linked to the offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, reduced to 6 years and 10 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included DNA samples, a weapons prohibition, a communication ban with the victim, and Sex Offender Registry inclusion.

The offender, Donta Easterbrook, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after an unprovoked stabbing in a subway station.

The victim sustained a neck wound but recovered physically, though experiencing emotional trauma.

The offender, 23, had a history of violent convictions, drug addiction, and mental health issues, with inconsistent engagement in treatment and expressed mixed remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, particularly given the public nature of the attack.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months additional custody (totaling approximately 18 months including pre-trial credit), followed by a three-year probation order, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, Chemar Guillaume, was charged with three counts of assaulting a peace officer and three counts of wilfully resisting a peace officer following an incident where he refused to leave a courtroom after his case was remanded.

He also brought a Charter application alleging excessive force and cruel and unusual punishment by court officers.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officers' use of force reasonable and proportionate given the accused's unruly behaviour.

Regarding the assault charges, the court found that while the accused's actions were reckless and caused physical contact, the Crown failed to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the accused was found guilty of wilfully resisting peace officers, as his active physical resistance was intentional and aimed at thwarting the officers' lawful duties to escort him.

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, 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, 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, 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.