Chris Hanson

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of threatening bodily harm against his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child.

The Crown withdrew the threatening count and one assault count.

At trial, the court heard evidence from the complainant, a witness, and the accused regarding an incident at the complainant's residence.

The complainant alleged the accused choked and forcefully moved her during a heated argument.

The accused denied assaulting her, claiming he simply left when asked.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, finding his evidence contradictory and unreliable, while accepting the credible testimony of the complainant and witness regarding a lunge with contact.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault arising from a stabbing incident outside a bar in Oshawa.

The accused stabbed two brothers multiple times with a knife, causing serious injuries including punctured lungs, collapsed lung, and cardiac injury.

The court imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, less pre-trial custody credit, with concurrent sentences on both counts.

The sentencing emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount principles, given the unprovoked nature of the attacks, the accused's extensive criminal history involving violence, his possession of a weapon while intoxicated, and the premeditated manner in which the knife was concealed and deployed.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and voyeurism against two accused, M.S. and R.S., involving a child complainant, A.R. The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and key Crown witnesses, Q.W. and P.K., noting inconsistencies, exaggerations, and troubling explanations for delayed reporting.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt, concluding that the Crown's evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the defendant, Christopher John Clymer.

The defendant faced serious charges including two counts of aggravated assault and had a criminal record with violent offences.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by failing to adequately analyze the secondary grounds and by not considering the tertiary grounds for detention, as required by R. v. St. Cloud.

The court vacated the original bail order and ordered the defendant's detention, finding that both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, particularly given the serious nature of the alleged offences, the defendant's violent criminal history, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Lucas John Ridgeway pleaded guilty to seven offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, arising from incidents of domestic violence between 2009 and 2012.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence, while the defence conceded dangerous offender status but argued for a fixed sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found Ridgeway to be a dangerous offender, citing a pattern of escalating violence and persistent aggressive behaviour towards his domestic partners.

Applying the three-part test from R. v. McCallum, the court determined that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, particularly given the unavailability of recommended therapy (DBT) in federal facilities and Ridgeway's history of re-offending immediately upon release.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order and lifetime prohibitions on firearms and victim contact.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.

The accused, a 19-year-old offender, pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a firearm after shooting the victim in the face with a sawed-off shotgun in the early morning hours of December 8, 2013.

The victim sustained only superficial lacerations and made a full recovery.

The Crown sought 10 years' imprisonment while defence counsel submitted 3-4 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment (equivalent to 7 years and 9 months after pre-sentence custody credit), finding that the offence required significant denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's youth, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant on July 10, 2011.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, the investigating officer, and a neighbour.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming self-defence.

The court rejected the accused's version of events and accepted the complainant's account.

The accused was found guilty of assault.

The court noted that the accused failed to attend court on two scheduled dates, resulting in a bench warrant being issued.