3 total
Custody Appeal decision
The offender, a 63-year-old man with a distinguished career in education, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, making child pornography, and counselling the indictable offence of sexual assault.
Over a multi-year period, the offender engaged in online communications with undercover officers posing as individuals interested in child sexual abuse, collected child pornography, created written child pornography depicting violent sexual abuse of a child, and provided detailed instructions to an undercover officer posing as a mother on how to sexually abuse her eight-year-old daughter.
The court imposed a global sentence of three years (six months for possession, 12 months for making, and 18 months for counselling, all consecutive), along with ancillary orders including a five-year prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, DNA sampling, sex offender registration for life, and forfeiture of electronic devices.
Motion to quash judicial review application granted as the underlying dispute had become moot.
The applicants filed complaints regarding police conduct during the G20 summit.
The Director initially directed the Chiefs of Police not to seek extensions of time to serve Notices of Hearing, effectively closing the matters.
The applicants sought judicial review.
Following a Divisional Court decision in another case, the Director reversed his decision and directed the Chiefs to seek extensions, which they did.
The Director then brought a motion to quash the judicial review application on the basis of mootness.
The court granted the motion, finding that the dispute had disappeared and there was no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.
Police-wide child interview protocols are first-party disclosure, but general training materials are not.
The accused was charged with sexual offences against a four-year-old child.
During a voir dire into the admissibility of a video-recorded police interview with the child complainant, the defence brought a motion for further Crown disclosure seeking police training materials, policy manuals, and information regarding the interviewing officer's training in child interrogation techniques.
The Crown argued these materials were not in its possession and control, and that the defence should pursue a third-party records application.
The court granted the motion in part, ordering disclosure of police-wide standards, policies, and protocols governing child interviews, but refusing disclosure of general training and reference materials.
