Christine Keitha Jenkins

The offender was convicted of break and enter and armed robbery after a home invasion targeting a sex worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years and a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' imprisonment, granting 6.5 years of enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, leaving 6 months to serve.

The court found the offender met the criteria for an LTO designation due to a substantial risk of violent reoffending and a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community, imposing a 7-year long-term supervision order.

The respondent was convicted after a jury trial of assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment against the victim.

He was acquitted of uttering a threat to cause death.

The Crown sought judicial determination of facts for sentencing purposes and for a s. 752.1 assessment.

The respondent challenged the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence on several material points, including who initiated contact, the frequency of meetings, and who informed the respondent of his mother's death.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment of both witnesses and made findings on the disputed facts, ultimately accepting the victim's evidence as more reliable and credible despite some inconsistencies.

Brendan Bananish pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown sought a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation and an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The defence opposed the LTO designation and sought a shorter sentence.

The court designated Bananish an LTO, imposed a global penitentiary sentence of seven years and three months (with 63 months credit for pre-sentence custody), and ordered an eight-year Long-Term Supervision Order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court considered Bananish's extensive criminal record, history of intimate partner violence, psychiatric diagnoses (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, severe substance use disorder), and repeated breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging his Indigenous background and related systemic factors.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, uttering a death threat, and use of an imitation firearm.

The offences involved a prolonged, sadistic torture session of a former intimate partner over a perceived debt.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and troubled background.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 6.5 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, Jason Lacroix, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, commission of an indictable offence with an imitation firearm, and unlawful confinement.

The court considered his background, including a history of substance abuse, a traumatic brain injury, and a lengthy criminal record, alongside his lesser degree of responsibility compared to a co-accused.

The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years, while the defence proposed four to five years.

The court sentenced the defendant to a global sentence of five years, less pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the parity principle and his subordinate role in the offences.

The court sentenced an offender for historic kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, choking, and threat offences committed against two vulnerable sex workers in 1986.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, the totality principle, and the Charter protection against double punishment, the court rejected the submission that a prior Colorado sentence barred or substantially reduced sentence in Canada, although it treated the U.S. sentence as a collateral consequence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including prolonged confinement, repeated sexual violence, use of weapons, the victims' vulnerability, offending while on bail, and a serious prior record, while giving limited mitigation for age and harsh remand conditions.

A 19-year global sentence was imposed, with 3303 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, SOIRA, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders.

Jason Hadfield was found guilty of robbery and manslaughter.

The Crown applied to have him found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder and designated as a high-risk accused (HRA).

Both parties agreed on the NCR finding due to schizophrenia.

The court then considered the HRA designation, which the defence resisted.

The court reviewed the nature of the offences, the accused's repetitive violent behaviour, current mental condition, past treatment, and expert opinions.

The court found a substantial likelihood that the accused, if unrestrained and untreated, would use violence endangering others.

Consequently, the accused was designated a high-risk accused, requiring detention in a hospital with strict conditions on absence.

The accused applied for costs against the Crown following a trial where he was convicted of theft and assault but acquitted of sexual assault.

The application stemmed from the Crown's delayed and initially redacted disclosure of a complainant's 911 call, which necessitated a formal disclosure application and caused a lengthy trial adjournment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the disclosure failures were systemic and inadvertent, they did not constitute a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution" or result in "extreme hardship" to the accused, which are the high thresholds required for an award of costs against the Crown in criminal matters.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, against two sex workers in 1986.

The accused fled to the United States shortly after being charged and was not returned to Canada until 2015.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit similar fact evidence across the counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his s. 7 rights were breached due to the loss of the original police files and evidence over the 35-year delay.

The court found a s. 7 breach regarding some lost evidence but declined to order a stay, noting the accused's own flight caused the delay.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts, staying one count of unlawful confinement under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, charged with multiple massage parlour robberies, applied to exclude evidence seized from his rented truck and room, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The court found that while the initial search of the truck incident to arrest was lawful, the police seriously violated the defendant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel and improperly questioning him about his address.

This unconstitutionally obtained information led to a warrantless entry into his room, violating s. 8, and the subsequent seizure of a distinctive leather jacket.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the jacket and evidence obtained from a later warrant search of the truck, but admitted the knife and phones found during the initial lawful search.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking a frail 61-year-old victim with a single punch, causing him to fall and suffer a fatal head injury.

The court weighed the offender's significant criminal record and the vulnerability of the victim against his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, granting 24 months of credit for pre-sentence custody, which included enhanced credit for harsh conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 5 years to serve.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a prior detention order in a prosecution involving historic allegations of kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting adjournment of the trial, entitling the accused to a fresh bail hearing.

Although the court concluded the accused narrowly met the reverse onus on the primary ground, it held detention remained necessary on the tertiary ground given the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the horrific circumstances of the alleged offences, the accused's past flight, repeated delay attributable to the accused, and a weak release plan.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault with weapon, forcible confinement, and assault causing bodily harm arising from a pattern of domestic violence against his intimate partner over seven years.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

The court declined to designate the accused as a dangerous offender, finding that his violent conduct was not intractable and that there was a realistic possibility of eventual control in the community through intensive treatment offered by Corrections Canada.

The court instead designated him as a long-term offender and imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order with conditions including dialectical behaviour therapy, substance abuse counselling, and intimate partner violence counselling.

The applicant, Raymond Burke, sought a stay of proceedings for charges including kidnapping and sexual assault, laid over 30 years prior.

He argued unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter and denial of the right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 due to lost evidence.

The court found a 12.5-year period of Crown delay, from when an extradition treaty came into force in 2003 until his return to Canada in 2015, during which Canadian authorities failed to seek his extradition despite knowing his whereabouts and incarceration in the U.S. This delay, coupled with significant inferred and real prejudice from destroyed evidence, was deemed unreasonable under both the Jordan and pre-Jordan (Morin) frameworks.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and raised a constitutional challenge during sentencing concerning the denial of enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody where bail had been cancelled under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered whether the statutory limitation violated s. 7 of the Charter by infringing the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Relying on appellate authority recognizing proportionality as a principle of fundamental justice, the court found that the provision could produce disparate custodial outcomes unrelated to the gravity of the offence or the offender’s responsibility, particularly where detention depended on the ability to obtain bail.

The court held that the deprivation of liberty was not in accordance with fundamental justice and that the provision was arbitrary and not minimally impairing.

The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Following conviction for criminal harassment and before disposition, the court addressed serious concerns about the accused's mental health and criminal responsibility.

After an earlier assessment order failed to yield the mandatory written report, the court held that the statutory requirements under ss. 672.11 and 672.2 of the Criminal Code had not been met.

Relying on forensic psychiatric evidence, the court concluded that a fulsome inpatient assessment was necessary to determine criminal responsibility and to inform a fair and safe sentencing disposition.

A fresh 60-day assessment order was issued, with detailed directions and prompt transport to the psychiatric facility.

The offender pleaded guilty to an unprovoked assault causing bodily harm against a stranger while on parole for manslaughter.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 3.5 years (reduced to 6 months with enhanced pre-sentence credit) and 3 years of probation.

The court dismissed the long-term offender application, finding that while the offender posed a risk, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a substantial risk of violent reoffending as required by the legislation.

The Crown applied under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for an order directing an assessment to determine whether the offender should be designated a dangerous offender or long‑term offender following a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm.

The offender previously pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from an earlier violent assault and committed the new offence while on parole and under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

The court considered the low threshold applicable to ordering an assessment and whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the offender might meet the criteria under s. 753 or s. 753.1.

Finding evidence of a pattern of unprovoked violent behaviour associated with substance abuse and a failure to restrain conduct, the court concluded the statutory threshold was met.

An assessment order was therefore granted.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing his best friend with the neck of a broken vodka bottle during an intoxicated argument.

The accused claimed self-defence, asserting he feared grievous bodily harm from the complainant.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding that although the accused may have reasonably believed force was being used or threatened, the act of stabbing was not done for the purpose of defence and was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court found the stabbing was an act of anger rather than self-defence, particularly as the complainant was turning to walk away when stabbed.

The accused was found guilty as charged, with the assault causing bodily harm conviction stayed.