Charles H. Vaillancourt

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm under section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The victim suffered severe facial injuries requiring major reconstructive surgery including multiple fractures and orbital floor reconstruction.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years of probation, a section 110 weapons prohibition for ten years, a DNA order, and a $100 victim fine surcharge.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked nature of the assault, the accused's remorse, his completion of anger management counselling, his stable employment, and his prior conditional discharges.

The accused, a licensed paralegal, pleaded guilty to attempting to defraud Aviva Canada Insurance of monies not exceeding five thousand dollars between September 21, 2015 and November 16, 2015.

She participated in an insurance fraud scheme operated by a chiropractor, Dr. Edward Hayes, whereby she assisted undercover insurance investigators in preparing fraudulent insurance claims and provided advice on how to maximize claims and avoid detection.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence with house arrest or jail time, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with one year probation, 100 hours of community service, $1,000 restitution, and a $100 victim fine surcharge, finding that the unique and cumulative mitigating circumstances warranted this exceptional outcome despite the serious breach of public trust.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of expert opinion evidence from forensic accountant Mark Grenon regarding Senator Duffy's travel claims, financial practices, Senate contract funds, and a payment to the Receiver General.

The Crown sought to adduce comprehensive forensic accounting evidence analyzing Senator Duffy's expense claims submitted to the Senate, his personal financial situation, Senate funds procured and distributed through third parties, and a specific payment.

The defence objected to most of the evidence as overreaching, unnecessary, and prejudicial.

The court applied the two-step Mohan/Abbey framework for admissibility of expert evidence and admitted substantially all of the Crown's proposed evidence, with limited restrictions on the scope of certain areas.

The applicant, Senator Michael Dennis Duffy, sought an order requiring the Clerk of the Senate to produce an internal audit report prepared by Jill Anne Joseph regarding Senate expense policies and Senator Duffy's expense claims.

The Senate claimed parliamentary privilege over the document.

The court upheld the Senate's claim of privilege, finding that the internal audit report, prepared by a Senate employee and presented to a Senate subcommittee in camera, fell within recognized categories of parliamentary privilege including freedom of speech, exclusive cognizance over parliamentary proceedings, control over internal affairs, and disciplinary authority over members.

The court rejected arguments that the privilege had been waived and distinguished the case from R. v. Chaytor, which addressed expense claims themselves rather than internal audit reports.

The court ruled on the admissibility of the Eleventh Report of the Senate's Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration dated December 15, 2010.

The defence sought to admit the report as a public document and under the principled approach to hearsay.

The Crown opposed admission, arguing the report lacked reliability and constituted inadmissible hearsay.

The court found the report met the criteria for admissibility as a public document, demonstrating necessity, reliability, and relevance to the trial.

The report provided background information on Senate administrative rules and internal audit findings regarding senators' expense claims and administrative practices.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing child pornography, making child pornography in Cuba, and multiple counts of sexual interference with children under 16 years of age in Cuba.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and one day plus a 10-year long-term offender designation.

The court found that the defendant posed a substantial risk of sexual re-offence and that there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community through the long-term offender regime.

The court rejected the defence submission for time served and a recognizance order, finding that such measures were inadequate given the severity of the offences and the defendant's demonstrated pattern of escalating sexual abuse of children over many years.

Two Ottawa police constables were charged with assault causing bodily harm after taking an intoxicated man to the ground during a street response.

The Crown relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from two civilian witnesses who observed the incident from across the street.

The court found the civilian witnesses' evidence to be extremely unreliable due to credibility issues, inconsistencies, memory problems, bias, and potential collusion.

The court found that the officers lawfully used force in self-defence and in the execution of their duties under the Criminal Code when they took the intoxicated man to the ground after he made aggressive arm motions toward them.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery while armed with a firearm and one count of being disguised with intent.

The robberies occurred over a six-day period in June 2010, targeting four convenience stores in Toronto.

The accused participated in the robberies as part of a group, though he did not handle the firearm or directly participate in the violence.

The court imposed a sentence balancing denunciation and deterrence against the accused's youth, remorse, cooperation with police, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a scheduled Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) hearing on the grounds that its key psychiatric witness, Dr. McDonald, was unavailable.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the Crown had failed to exercise due diligence in securing the witness's attendance despite having known the hearing date for eight months.

The court noted that the accused had made significant progress in treatment and rehabilitation since his release on bail, and that the Crown had failed to meet the established test for adjournment under R. v. Darville.

The court proceeded to sentencing based on the accused's guilty pleas.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his sister following a confrontation at a parking lot.

The accused punched his sister in the face after she struck him multiple times during an altercation over her purse, causing her to lose consciousness and suffer facial fractures.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of six to nine months, later adjusted to ninety days intermittent.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a monetary fine of $500 plus victim surcharge and eighteen months probation with conditions, finding that incarceration was unnecessary given the accused's background, remorse, and unlikelihood to reoffend, but that a discharge would be contrary to public interest given the severity of the assault.