Christopher K. Assié

Trial on circumstantial evidence for possession of a loaded handgun found beneath the accused's vehicle.

A police officer observed the accused smoking cannabis in a parked car at a motel parking lot, drove past, and saw the accused exit and kneel beside the driver's door before attempting to walk away.

A loaded handgun was subsequently discovered under the vehicle within arm's reach of the driver's door.

No fingerprints attributable to the accused were found and DNA on the firearm belonged to an unknown male.

The court applied the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, rejected defence arguments that the firearm could have been left by someone else, and found the only reasonable inference was that the accused possessed and discarded the firearm upon spotting the officer.

The defendant was convicted after trial of assaulting his wife, breaching an undertaking by communicating with her, and distributing an intimate video of his wife without consent.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months in custody followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing decision provides comprehensive analysis of the principles applicable to distributing intimate images without consent, including a detailed framework of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found the conduct to be at the higher end of the seriousness spectrum due to the domestic context, premeditated nature, targeted dissemination to family members, identifiability of the victim, and the profound impact on the victim and her family.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years, reduced by 3.5 months for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and further reduced by 16.5 months for time already served (11 months credited at 1.5:1), resulting in a further 16 months to be served.

The court considered extensive aggravating factors including the size of the collection (3,324 images and 65 videos), the nature of the material depicting real children in graphic sexual acts, active participation in the child pornography subculture through trading and chat communications, and mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, cooperation with police, sincere remorse, and traumatic childhood involving sexual and physical abuse.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether a judge who is not the trial judge or a case management judge appointed under s. 551.1 of the Criminal Code has jurisdiction to hear an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault case to testify remotely by video from another province.

The court held that any judge having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place may hear such an application, not only the trial or case management judge.

On the merits, the court denied the Crown’s application for remote testimony, finding that the witness’s inconvenience did not displace the presumption that testimony should be in person, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the witness’s ability to attend physically.