Bruce Sosa

The offender was serving a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence for serious offences involving the prolonged abuse of her children.

After serving part of the sentence, she deliberately breached the house arrest condition on two occasions by leaving her approved area without a valid excuse.

The court found that these breaches were wilful and undermined the sentence's punitive goals.

Despite the offender's mental health issues and the impact of incarceration on her family, the court ordered her conditional sentence terminated and that she serve the balance of her sentence in custody.

The sentencing court addressed guilty pleas entered on a limited factual basis to sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault involving a child complainant, followed by a Gardiner hearing on disputed facts.

Applying Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, including ss. 718.1 and 718.2, the court found prolonged abuse over five years, severe and lasting victim harm, a major breach of trust, and high moral blameworthiness, with minimal mitigation beyond the absence of a criminal record.

Guided by R v Friesen and comparator appellate and trial authorities, the court fixed a fit sentence at eleven years' imprisonment.

After Summers credit and additional credit for harsh pretrial detention conditions, the remaining custodial term was seven years, with concurrent sentences on the sexual interference and sexual exploitation counts, a conditional stay of the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle, and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, s. 161, and no-contact orders.

Following guilty pleas on a limited factual basis to sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine whether the accused's sexual abuse extended over the broader five-year period charged.

The court accepted the complainant's account of progressive grooming and repeated sexual abuse beginning when she was a child, and found that the secretly recorded final assault strongly corroborated her evidence and undermined the accused's claim that the abuse began only months earlier.

The accused's evidence was rejected as implausible and internally inconsistent, and the mother's evidence was given no confidence on the question of opportunity.

The court found the accused guilty of the offences as charged over the full period.

The applicant, Jack Densmore, facing sexual assault and voyeurism charges, sought disclosure of journalistic records from The Hamilton Spectator related to the complainant and other witnesses.

The Spectator, supported by the Crown, objected, claiming journalistic privilege under the Journalistic Sources Protection Act (JSPA) and the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and arguing the Mills regime applied.

The court analyzed the applicability of the JSPA (CEA branch), Mills, and O'Connor regimes, and the Vice Media framework.

The court found that the journalistic records were privileged under the JSPA (CEA branch) as the sources were promised anonymity, and the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable necessity or that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in preserving confidentiality.

Alternatively, the court found the Mills regime applied, and the applicant failed to establish the records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice.

Consequently, the application for disclosure was dismissed.

Owen Silverthorne pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the unlawful killing of Shane Grenier.

The incident involved a drug transaction, an altercation in a vehicle, and the discharge of a handgun, followed by steps taken by Silverthorne to conceal his involvement.

The Crown accepted the manslaughter plea due to arguable self-defence and provocation issues.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a prohibited firearm in drug trafficking, the devastating impact on the victim's family, the offender's criminal record, and the threat to public safety posed by firearms.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, which spared judicial resources and provided certainty, the triable issues of self-defence and provocation, the offender's youth, family support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court accepted the joint sentencing submission of 5.5 years jail, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault, dangerous driving, and driving while disqualified.

At sentencing, the trial judge imposed a global sentence of three years' incarceration, agreeing with the Crown's position that the sentence should be in addition to 63 days of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not crediting the pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reduced three-year sentence already accounted for the guilty plea, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pre-sentence custody.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from non-consensual intercourse with a 15-year-old complainant.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under ss. 718.01 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and relied on recent appellate guidance emphasizing higher penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children.

A COVID-19-based sentence reduction was refused because any reduction would be arbitrary and would undermine proportionality.

The court imposed a 48-month penitentiary sentence on the sexual interference count, credited 669 days for pre-trial custody plus 106 days for lockdown conditions, stayed the sexual assault count under Kienapple, and made most of the requested ancillary orders except a s. 161 order.

The applicant sought a s.520 review of a detention order made on secondary grounds.

The court found several material changes in circumstances since the original show cause hearing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a new release plan involving residence with his daughter, and the withdrawal of one of the charges.

The court also expressed reservations about the adequacy of the reasons for the initial detention order.

Applying principles favouring release, the court granted the bail review and ordered the applicant's release on specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially given potential trial delays due to the pandemic.