B. R. Warkentin

The accused was charged with attempted murder, attempted aggravated sexual assault, attempt to administer a noxious thing, and sexual assault against a developmentally delayed complainant, alleging he attempted to infect the complainant with HIV.

The trial was severed from counts involving other complainants.

The court found the accused intended to infect others with HIV, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to anally penetrate the complainant without consent, due to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence.

The accused was acquitted of the main charges but found guilty of a conceded breach of probation charge.

The accused, a 47-year-old computer programmer with no prior record, was found guilty of possessing child pornography.

A search of his computer revealed 24 videos and 17 images.

A psychiatric assessment diagnosed him with pedophilia and hebephilia, though he was deemed a low risk to re-offend.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the accused to 6 months' incarceration followed by 18 months' probation, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a section 161 prohibition order.

The Crown applied for certiorari to overturn a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on first degree murder and commit her to stand trial for second degree murder.

The respondent had struck and killed the victim with her vehicle following a prolonged period of criminal harassment.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing competing inferences regarding whether the murder occurred while the respondent was committing criminal harassment.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge properly conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence and made no jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence of criminal harassment at the exact time of the murder.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The statement had previously been ruled inadmissible in a separate proceeding before a different judge.

The court held that issue estoppel did not apply to voluntariness rulings and permitted the voir dire.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to a missing minute of video recording, an unrecorded interaction in the holding cells, and a failure to transport him directly to the remand centre after bail court.

The court found the police explanations reasonable, no evidence of improper conduct, and concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The Crown brought an application to admit a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to a missing minute of the video recording, an unrecorded cell block visit, and a failure to comply with a remand warrant.

The accused also argued that a previous ruling in a separate proceeding excluding the same statement should bar its admission based on issue estoppel.

The court held that issue estoppel does not apply to voluntariness rulings.

The court further found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, as the missing recording and technical warrant violation did not overbear the accused's will.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to make a four-year-old child a permanent ward of the Crown.

The child's mother and father did not oppose the motion or present viable plans of care.

The paternal grandmother opposed the motion and presented a plan of care.

The court found that the grandmother had a long history of child protection involvement, lacked a relationship with the child, and failed to demonstrate an ability to meet the child's needs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered that the child be made a permanent Crown ward.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari and mandamus to overturn a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondents on charges of first degree murder and commit them on second degree murder.

The Crown argued the judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences, usurping the role of the trier of fact, and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding planning and deliberation and unlawful confinement.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the test for committal and did not commit any jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to return a verdict of first degree murder.

The applicant father was successful in an emergency motion regarding the parties' son's residence after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child.

The applicant sought $9,000 in costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent argued she was unable to pay due to being on Ontario Works and having a medical condition.

The court awarded nominal costs of $150 to the applicant, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the ongoing changes to the child's residence.