Christina Lynch

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced E.T. to 5½ years imprisonment for sexual assault with a weapon involving his former spouse and their child.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the use of a knife, the involvement of the child, and the breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors such as E.T.'s lack of criminal record, supportive family background, and mental health diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

The Court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample provision, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a non-communication order with the victim while in custody.

The decision highlights the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing sexual offences involving intimate partners and children.

The offender was found guilty of unlawfully in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The court considered sentencing submissions, including the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order (CSO).

The judge determined that a combination of real jail and a CSO was appropriate, imposing 90 days intermittent jail and a fine for the sexual assault, and a 10-month CSO followed by probation for the unlawfully in a dwelling house offence.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The defendant, Brennen Harman, was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that Harman entered the complainant's locked basement apartment while she slept and sexually assaulted her.

The defendant denied the claims, suggesting the complainant fabricated them after being evicted.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, concluding that he had access to the apartment, a demonstrated sexual interest in the complainant, and that the complainant's testimony was credible and corroborated by other evidence, rebutting the fabrication defence.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in an automobile on November 1, 2018, while driving the complainant home from a medical appointment in Toronto.

The complainant testified that the accused repeatedly touched his genitals and inner thigh over his clothing while driving, despite the complainant pretending to sleep.

The accused denied any sexual touching, claiming he only shook the complainant's shoulder to wake him and kept both hands on the wheel due to heavy traffic.

The trial judge found the complainant credible but harbored reasonable doubt about his reliability given his drowsy state and the practical impossibility of the accused simultaneously driving safely in rush hour traffic while engaging in the alleged conduct.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol concentration following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol to any degree, based on the totality of evidence including observations of physical signs of impairment, inconsistent statements regarding the route driven and alcohol consumption, and the defendant's own acknowledgment that he knew he had consumed too much alcohol to drive safely.

The Crown also established compliance with the statutory prerequisites under section 320.31 of the Criminal Code for relying on the Certificate of Qualified Technician to prove blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

She applied for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The main issue was whether a five-month period during which the Crown failed to provide video disclosure in a playable form constituted defence delay.

The court found that the three-week adjournment after receiving the playable video constituted defence delay, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings by not seeking a judicial pre-trial earlier.

The net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was unreasonable.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault against his step-daughter.

He argued the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to engage in oath-helping during examination-in-chief, misapprehending evidence, applying uneven scrutiny to the testimony, and improperly admitting bad character evidence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no impermissible oath-helping, no misapprehension of evidence, and no improper reliance on disreputable conduct evidence to convict.

The accused brought applications to stay their charges of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and assault under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b).

The total delay was estimated at 45 to 46 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court dismissed the applications, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' due to multiple accused, voluminous disclosure from three jurisdictions, and numerous pre-trial applications.

The court also found the delay reasonable under the transitional framework for cases instituted pre-Jordan.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a 13-year-old victim, sexual assault of a young female victim involving administration of a noxious substance, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months plus 18 months imprisonment for sexual interference, 30 months consecutive for sexual assault, 18 months concurrent for administering noxious substance, and 3 months concurrent for each breach.

The court applied principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives given the abuse of minors, breach of trust, and grooming conduct.

Ancillary orders included SOIRA registration for life, 20-year section 161 restrictions on contact with females under 16, 10-year weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition with victims during custody.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of his residence, arguing his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated.

Police had entered the home without a warrant after receiving a 911 call from a witness who observed a man assaulting a woman in a vehicle that was later located in the applicant's driveway.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the warrantless entry was justified under the common law exigent circumstances doctrine due to concerns for the woman's safety.

The court also held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that drugs found in the basement were lawfully seized in plain view.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was tried for assault following an incident observed by an independent witness driving a truck.

The witness testified to seeing the accused repeatedly strike the female passenger and place her in a headlock while driving.

The complainant, who was the accused's girlfriend, denied the assault occurred, claiming they were merely 'play fighting'.

The court found the independent witness credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies and a clear power imbalance, and found the accused guilty of assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the breath demand and that section 10(b) rights were infringed due to incomplete disclosure regarding the counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court admitted the evidence as the long-term interests of justice favoured inclusion.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The Crown sought to introduce a 911 call recording and transcript as evidence in a trial for breaking and entering, assault, and threatening bodily harm.

The complainant, Matthew Turner, testified that he could not recall the events of October 31, 2016, and was uncertain whether the voice on the 911 recording was his own.

The Crown argued the 911 call was admissible under the res gestae exception to hearsay or alternatively under a principled approach to hearsay.

The defence opposed admission on both grounds.

The court ruled the 911 call admissible under the res gestae exception as a spontaneous statement made in the immediate aftermath of traumatic events while the caller was under emotional stress with no opportunity to fabricate.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

A police officer observed the accused's vehicle being driven at high speed and revving its engine, conducted a traffic stop, and arrested the accused first for possession of a controlled substance based on observation of a glass pipe, and subsequently for impaired operation based on odour of alcohol and a single stumble.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for either arrest, constituting violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The breath samples were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused, a primary grades music teacher, was charged with one count of assault and thirteen counts of sexual assault and sexual interference involving fourteen complainants.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainants was tainted by collusion arising from widespread rumours at the school following the initial accusation.

The judge found that the complainants' evidence lacked reliability, noting that none had reported any misconduct prior to the rumours, many had recanted or changed their stories significantly, and the physical circumstances of the alleged touching were improbable.

The judge acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.