C. Assie

The accused was charged with five offences arising from sexually explicit communications and images exchanged with a 15-year-old girl who was the foster daughter of his aunt.

The Crown proved that the accused possessed and made child pornography in the form of explicit photographs and videos of the victim, as well as sexually explicit text messages depicting sexual activity with her.

The court found the accused was in a position of trust toward the victim, having served as a role model and emotional support figure since her childhood.

The accused was acquitted of counselling the victim to touch herself sexually, as she initiated that topic.

The accused was also acquitted of luring under section 172.2 due to reasonable doubt as to whether the planned sexual activity was to occur after the victim turned 16 and before she turned 18, as required by the statute.

The court applied the private use exception from R. v. Sharpe, finding that while self-created expressive material may be protected if held exclusively for personal use, the accused lost that protection by sending the explicit messages to the victim.

In a judge-alone historical sexual offence trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual interference against his stepdaughter arising from incidents in the family home when she was 11 years old.

The case turned primarily on credibility and reliability, with the court applying the W.(D.) framework, rejecting stereotypical assumptions about delayed disclosure and continued association with an abuser, and accepting the complainant's explanation for memory gaps and suppression.

A private journal entry, the complainant's knowledge that the accused was circumcised, and the surrounding family dynamics supported the complainant's account.

The accused's denial was rejected, and proposed Crown expert evidence on abuse dynamics was excluded as unnecessary.

The accused was charged with Impaired and Over 80 Care or Control and Dangerous Driving following a motor vehicle collision on October 10, 2014.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence based on violations of sections 8, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the grounds for the breath demand, the timing of breath samples, the right to counsel, and the identification procedure.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found no violations.

The defendant was charged with "Over 80" following a traffic stop by Durham Regional Police.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The central issue was whether the officer complied with the "immediacy requirement" under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code when making the approved screening device (ASD) demand.

The officer delayed approximately nine minutes before communicating the ASD demand after forming reasonable suspicion, and failed to provide rights to counsel during detention while awaiting the ASD.

The court found serious Charter breaches and excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2), resulting in acquittal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 16 contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offences occurred on or about May 25, 2014, involving a three-year-old complainant.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, her brother, and their mother.

The accused provided a statement to police denying the allegations and offering an alternative account of events.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt based on inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the plausibility of the accused's alternative account, and concerns about the reliability of evidence from a very young child at a late hour.

During a trial for kidnapping and robbery, the Crown led cell tower evidence to establish the identity of the accused.

In closing addresses, defense counsel suggested there was a 40 percent error rate regarding the general rule that cell phones connect to the closest tower.

The Crown objected.

The trial judge ruled that because the witnesses did not adopt the proposition of a 40 percent error rate during cross-examination, there was no evidence to support the suggestion.

A corrective instruction was provided to the jury in the final charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and touching for a sexual purpose of a person under the age of 16 contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, relating to alleged conduct on or about May 25, 2014.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The defence challenged the voluntariness of the statement on the grounds of improper inducement and alleged violation of the right to counsel.

The court found that the Crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding both inducement and the right to counsel violation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following an incident at a schoolyard where police responded to an assault complaint.

Officers observed the accused and another male quickly enter a vehicle and attempt to drive away.

The vehicle was stopped by police.

Breath samples taken approximately two and a half hours after the incident showed readings of 117 mg and 118 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence raised the issue of bolus drinking, arguing that an open bottle of Hennessy cognac found in the back seat of the vehicle provided an air of reality to the defence.

The Crown's toxicologist testified that the accused's blood-alcohol level at the time of care and control would have been between 115 and 165 mg per 100 ml of blood, based on standard elimination rates.

The court found no credible evidence of bolus drinking and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with care and control over 80 following an incident at a soccer field where he was identified as a suspect in an assault.

Police conducted an Approved Screening Device test and subsequently obtained breath samples at the police station.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code was satisfied due to legitimate officer safety concerns, there was a breach of section 8 of the Charter because the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Four young persons pleaded guilty to assault offences stemming from a brutal, unprovoked attack on two victims at a sweet sixteen party on July 29, 2012.

Z.N. wielded a machete and inflicted the most serious injuries, including a deep gash to one victim's neck exposing the spine.

The other three young persons participated in the assault through punching, kicking, and one carried a knife.

The court imposed custodial sentences with probation, with Z.N. receiving the longest sentence due to his role as the primary assailant.

The court applied Youth Criminal Justice Act principles, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration while considering each young person's individual circumstances and degree of culpability.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless use of a firearm and causing a disturbance by being drunk in a public place.

The offences occurred when the defendant, intoxicated after drinking with co-workers, returned to his workplace with a loaded shotgun and fired one shot into the ceiling in the presence of witnesses.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days on an intermittent basis, followed by 15 months of probation with conditions including alcohol counselling, community service, and a weapons prohibition.

The court balanced mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, good work history, remorse) against aggravating factors (dangerous conduct, presence of others, combination of guns and alcohol) and determined that deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence despite the defendant's low risk to reoffend.