Catherine Rachel Glaister

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm and obstruction of a peace officer.

The trial judge found the mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years' probation, noting exceptional circumstances involving a home invasion where the respondent acted initially in self-defence and used the intruders' weapon.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not manifestly unfit given the mitigating factors.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual interference against his two granddaughters.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions on reasonable doubt concerning child witnesses and in his handling of similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed on the standard of proof and propensity reasoning, and the trial judge's similar fact ruling was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge engaged in prohibited propensity reasoning.

The trial judge had used the appellant's admitted infidelity to infer that he would disregard the complainant's rule requiring condom use during intercourse.

The Court of Appeal agreed this was prohibited propensity reasoning and noted the appellant had no notice that his infidelity would be used for this purpose, rendering the trial procedurally unfair.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

Specifically, the appellant contended the trial judge impermissibly relied on the complainant's religious beliefs to reject the defence theory that she had a motive to fabricate the allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that evidence of religious motives was admissible to explain the timing of disclosure and rebut the fabrication theory.

The court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of demeanour evidence or his assessment of investigative gaps.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge failed to provide sufficient guidance to the jury on assessing credibility in accordance with the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inconsistencies raised by the appellant were not vital issues requiring a W.(D.) instruction.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's instructions adequately conveyed the relationship between credibility findings and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a shooting outside a party venue.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the recognition identification evidence of a police officer who identified the accused as the shooter from poor-quality surveillance videos, based on a single prior traumatic encounter.

The court admitted the officer's recognition evidence but ultimately gave it little weight due to reliability concerns, including the poor quality of the images and the lack of distinctive features.

After conducting its own comparison of the accused with the video images, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the shooter's identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault with a weapon.

The offender had a 30-year criminal record involving 16 violent offences, largely driven by intractable substance abuse.

The court considered psychiatric evidence indicating a high likelihood of violent recidivism and rejected arguments that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Despite considering the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's life, the court found the risk of future violence unmanageable in the community.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

The defendant, Brandon Wisdom, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that Mr. Wisdom sexually assaulted her while she was sleeping at a high school house party.

The central issue was credibility and consent, with the defence arguing the sexual activity was consensual and the complainant's evidence unreliable due to intoxication.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the defendant's testimony as contradicted and implausible.

The court concluded that the complainant was sexually assaulted while asleep and that the Crown proved the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a conviction for sexual assault.

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.

Trevor Clarke pleaded guilty to manslaughter for punching Paul Tonna, who subsequently died from a head injury.

The Crown sought a sentence of seven to nine years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, victim impact, and the offender's background, including his Indigenous heritage and significant rehabilitative efforts.

Applying Gladue principles, the court found that while denunciation and deterrence were primary, rehabilitation was a significant objective.

The court imposed a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment, reduced from 30 months due to harsh pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed unavailable as a penitentiary sentence was required.

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.

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.

At a judicial pre-trial, the court addressed several procedural issues for a self-represented accused facing a jury trial.

The Crown was directed to bring its application to appoint counsel for cross-examination of the complainant in writing.

The court also ordered the Crown to provide the entire disclosure package to the accused and remanded the matter to allow the accused to decide whether to bring applications under s. 11(b) of the Charter or s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation at a homeless shelter.

Video surveillance captured the accused swiping at the complainant's neck with a knife, after which the complainant beat the accused.

The accused claimed he was holding a crack pipe and raised self-defence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and convicted the accused based on the clear video evidence.

The accused, Stefan Ryan, facing a multi-count indictment for assaults including attempted murder, sought to sever counts related to unidentified victims from those with named victims.

The alleged assaults occurred within a two-hour timeframe in close proximity.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding a significant factual and evidentiary overlap between the counts.

The judge determined that separating the counts would result in nearly identical, lengthy trials, impairing trial efficiency and the truth-seeking function.

The court also noted that the risk of prejudice was mitigated by the fact that the trial would be by judge alone.

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with three counts of sexual assault.

The trial began in April 2019 but did not complete due to the trial judge's illness.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the proceedings and commence a new trial in December.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings based on delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating net delay after deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances.

The court found that the net delay fell below the 18-month threshold and dismissed the stay application.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of administering a noxious substance.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in non-consensual anal intercourse with two 18-year-old complainants whom he met through the Grindr app, despite their explicit prior communication that they did not want anal intercourse.

The accused admitted to sexual activity but claimed it was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault charges based on the credible and corroborating evidence of both complainants, the similar fact evidence demonstrating a distinctive pattern of behavior, and the clear communication of non-consent.

The court found the accused not guilty of administering a noxious substance due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding that charge.

A sexual assault trial involving allegations of non-consensual sexual activity.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse without the complainant's subjective consent.

The case hinged on whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity and, alternatively, whether the accused held an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The trial was divided into three phases: consensual foreplay on a couch, bedroom intercourse, and a second act of intercourse.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's lack of subjective consent and dismissed the charge.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and other serious offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to trial delay.

The total delay was approximately 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court calculated the net delay for each accused by deducting defence delay, including periods of counsel unavailability and a change of counsel.

The court found that the delay caused by a trial adjournment requested by the defence due to late disclosure of a cell phone extraction report was not attributable to the defence.

The net delay for both accused remained above the 30-month ceiling, and the court granted the stay of proceedings.

Siaka Camara was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearms offences, carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited firearms, and assault.

He also pleaded guilty to fraudulent personation and four counts of breaching firearms prohibition orders.

The court considered sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as primary, with rehabilitation as a secondary factor.

Aggravating factors included his criminal record, illegal return to Canada, and the serious nature of the firearms offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of nine years, less 4.5 years for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 4.5 years to be served, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and no-contact orders.