Cheryl Goodier

The accused was convicted of sexual interference with a person under 16 years old.

The offender, an 85-year-old violin teacher, kissed the 10-year-old complainant on the lips multiple times over approximately two years during private music lessons.

The court dismissed a Charter s. 11(b) application regarding unreasonable delay and imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court addressed the complex legal issue of mandatory minimum sentences, finding that the one-year mandatory minimum had been struck down and that s. 11(i) of the Charter precluded application of the previous 45-day minimum.

The sentencing balanced significant aggravating factors including breach of trust and the sexual nature of the conduct against substantial mitigating factors including the offender's advanced age, poor health, cognitive decline, lack of criminal record, and contributions to the musical community.

During a jury trial for historical sexual assault, the accused brought a Corbett application to exclude portions of his criminal record from cross-examination.

The court excluded two prior convictions for assault causing bodily harm due to the risk of propensity reasoning, but permitted cross-examination on a conviction for escaping lawful custody and 27 other offences of dishonesty.

When the accused subsequently testified and falsely claimed he had not been in trouble with the police since 1994, the Crown applied under s. 666 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine him on two excluded 1997 convictions.

The court permitted the Crown to cross-examine on the existence of the convictions and the sentence, but not the specific charges, to balance the right to challenge good character evidence against the risk of trial unfairness.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the stabbing death of her intimate partner.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted to a sentence of six years imprisonment.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it appropriate given the circumstances.

The offence occurred in a domestic context, which was significantly aggravating.

However, the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, substantial rehabilitation efforts including four years of sobriety, and strong family support were mitigating factors.

The court imposed a six-year sentence with credit for time served on a 1.5:1 basis, resulting in approximately five years and one month remaining to be served.

The accused applied for an adjournment of a trial scheduled for February 26, 2013.

During a judicial pre-trial held in camera, defence counsel raised concerns about police and Crown conduct in relation to an unrelated matter involving the accused from January 2013.

The court found that the concerns about the separate matter did not provide grounds for adjournment of the current trial, which involved complaints by two civilian witnesses from an earlier date.

The court refused the adjournment application and ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled, with witnesses directed not to attend before 11:00 a.m. to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict.

The Crown prosecuted historical sexual offence allegations said to have occurred between 1985 and 1987 against a child complainant in a household setting.

The trial judge found the complainant to be sincere and generally credible, but held that significant inconsistencies across police, preliminary inquiry, and trial accounts, substantial gaps in recollection, and the risk of memory distortion over time undermined reliability.

The court also found the corroborative evidence of the complainant's mother unreliable.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard to frail historical evidence, the court acquitted on all counts.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on historical sexual assault charges, arguing unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, abuse of process under s. 7, and prejudice from lost evidence.

The original charge was laid in 1986 and withdrawn shortly after, then re-laid in 2010 with additional counts.

The court found the 24-year gap between charges was neutral time and the institutional delay was within acceptable guidelines.

The court dismissed the abuse of process claim, finding no prosecutorial misconduct.

While the court found a breach of the right to make full answer and defence due to a lost exculpatory statement, it reserved the determination of the appropriate remedy until the end of the trial.