Catherine Rachel Glaister

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.

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.

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.

This is an appeal from a conviction for uttering threats, criminal harassment, and breach of probation, and from the imposed sentence.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's judicial notice of text messaging mechanics, assessment of gaps in the Crown's case, and credibility findings regarding the complainant.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge erred in the extent of judicial notice taken regarding text message fabrication methods, this error did not affect the outcome.

The court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and her determination that the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt despite evidentiary gaps.

The appeal against sentence, seeking a conditional discharge, was also dismissed, as the trial judge had considered mitigating factors and imposed a lenient sentence given the repeat nature of the domestic violence.

The defendant, Suzana Vidinovski, was found guilty after a jury trial of three counts of fraud over $5,000 and four counts of uttering forged documents.

The offences, committed between 2012 and 2014 while she was an administrative assistant, involved fraudulently obtaining approximately $81,000 from her employer, Core Realty Group Inc., through forged cheques and letters of direction.

The court considered her prior criminal record for similar offences and the significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought a prison term of 4-5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or 8-10 months incarceration.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the lack of exceptional mitigating circumstances and the need for general and specific deterrence and denunciation.

Vidinovski was sentenced to 18 months incarceration, 2 years probation, a restitution order of $44,556.44, and a DNA order.

The defendant employer was charged with failing to ensure compliance with section 37(1) of Ontario Regulation 213/91, which requires that material or equipment at a construction project be stored and moved in a manner that does not endanger a worker.

A transport driver employed by the defendant was fatally crushed when a curb machine tipped over while being unloaded from a float trailer.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the cause of the accident was not established.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the prosecution need not prove how the accident occurred, only that the prohibited act (moving equipment in a manner that endangered a worker) took place.

The fact that a worker was fatally injured constituted prima facie evidence of endangerment.

The Crown prosecuted Alpa Lumber Mills Inc. and its supervisor Van Kham Sichantha for failing to ensure that a rip saw machine (Rip Saw #1) was properly shielded or guarded to prevent product or material being processed from endangering worker safety, contrary to sections 25(1)(c) and 27(1)(a) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and section 26 of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

A worker was injured when a wooden stake was ejected from the machine at high velocity and pierced his arm.

The defendants argued they had taken all reasonable care by relying on the machine's built-in safety features, regular maintenance, and worker training.

The court found both defendants guilty, holding that the hazard of ejected material was reasonably foreseeable based on the manufacturer's own warnings, and that the defendants failed to take all reasonable steps including obtaining and reviewing the correct operating manual, implementing regular inspection of anti-kickback mechanisms, and ensuring workers did not stand in front of the infeed opening.

The Crown charged Wal-Mart Canada Corp. with failing to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed by regulation were carried out at a workplace, specifically that the floor be kept free of obstructions and hazards.

A maintenance worker tripped over an empty pallet left on the floor in the receiving area and fell, striking his head.

The worker died two weeks later, though the Crown conceded it could not prove causation.

The court found that the empty pallet constituted an obstruction and hazard under the applicable regulation.

While Wal-Mart had training programs, policies, and safety procedures in place, the court found the defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, primarily due to the absence of safety sweep logs for the receiving area and insufficient evidence of implementation of safety procedures in that specific location.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(d) rights based on an alleged promise by a Ministry of Labour inspector not to prosecute.

The defendant claimed the inspector's assurance, followed by the laying of charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that the defendant failed to establish a clear agreement or deal with the inspector, that the inspector's conduct did not rise to the level of abuse of process, and that no Charter breach occurred.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants, K-Tech Building Systems Inc. and its president Stanley Kondrotas, were charged with five offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 arising from their agreement with Bonnie Engel to construct a prefabricated cottage on her property.

The charges included making false, misleading or deceptive representations regarding material ordering and delivery, making an unconscionable representation, failing to provide a future performance agreement with prescribed requirements, and failing to refund payment within 15 days of cancellation notice.

The court found that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applied to the transaction despite arguments that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act should govern.

The defendants were convicted on four of five counts after failing to establish the due diligence defence.

The court found that the defendants' failure to include a completion date in the agreement created a situation where the consumer had the right to cancel after 30 days, and the defendants failed to meet their obligations under consumer protection legislation.