Clayton J. Conlan

After a lengthy judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused foster parents on counts of unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, failure to provide the necessaries of life, and constructive first degree murder.

The court rejected the defence evidence in its entirety, accepted the surviving child’s evidence on the core abuse allegations, and relied heavily on electronic communications, treating medical evidence, and expert pediatric and forensic pathology evidence.

The court held that prolonged confinement, use of zip ties and other restraints, deprivation of food, and failure to obtain urgent medical care established the offences relating to the surviving child and also formed part of the same single ongoing transaction of abuse and neglect that culminated in the older child’s death.

Applying the causation principles in Nette and the constructive first degree murder framework in Harbottle and Sundman, the court found that the accused’s failure to provide adequate food and medical attention was a substantial cause of death, that unlawful confinement was the underlying crime of domination, and that the Crown proved the requisite intent for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants moved to set aside default judgments in two related mortgage actions concerning their family home in Oakville.

The first action involved a second private mortgage held by an individual lender, while the second involved a first mortgage assigned to a corporate lender.

The defendants alleged fraud, unconscionability, and a coordinated loan-to-own scheme as meritorious defences.

Before the court needed to decide the motions, all parties reached a resolution through counsel cooperation, with one motion adjourned sine die and the other resolved by Minutes of Settlement, granting the defendants additional time to refinance and pay the indebtedness.

The defendants brought a motion originally seeking mandatory injunctive relief in relation to the plaintiff's sale of their property, which narrowed to a request for disclosure of the property appraisal.

The court acknowledged that while the plaintiff has a legal duty to act in good faith and obtain fair market value on the sale, there is no legal obligation to disclose the appraisal to the mortgagors.

The court found that creating such an obligation would constitute new law with broader policy implications that could not be properly addressed on a brief motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs on a substantial indemnity basis payable within 120 days, extended from the usual 30 days due to the defendants' financial circumstances.

The plaintiffs/moving parties sought summary judgment on a defaulted second mortgage in the principal amount of $425,000 secured against four properties.

The defendant's default was undisputed.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant's counsel had engaged in repeated attempts to stay or adjourn the motion through duplicitous motions that had already been dismissed by other judges, amounting to abuse of process.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $73,000 to the moving parties but deferred the issuance of Writs of Possession pending updated occupancy reports.

The offender was sentenced after pleading guilty to sexual interference against a minor child contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, while also considering rehabilitation and restraint in light of significant mental health history, remorse, and very low assessed risk of sexual reoffending.

Aggravating factors included repeated abuse over several months, gross breach of parental trust, the child’s vulnerability, and severe family harm.

The defence sought a reformatory term of two years less a day with probation, while the Crown sought four years.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 42 months with consent ancillary orders.

Sentencing of a repeat offender who pleaded guilty to five counts including advertising sexual services, receiving a financial benefit from sexual services, and three counts of fraud over $5,000 causing losses exceeding $670,000 to three victims.

The court applied Duncan/Marshall mitigation of 15 months for deplorable presentence custody conditions at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, including extended lockdowns, triple-bunking, unsanitary conditions, inmate assaults, and inadequate medical care for the offender's Crohn's disease.

After a base sentence of 54 months for the frauds and maximum Summers credit of 48 months for 956 days of presentence custody, the net carceral sentence imposed was 6 months, with all sentences running concurrently.

The Crown sought a ruling permitting use, in direct examination of the complainant, of materials disclosed by the defence during an in camera application for directions under the Criminal Code s. 278.93 framework.

The court held the materials were not “records” under s. 278.1 and had already been ruled outside the s. 278.93 regime.

It rejected the Crown’s reliance on R. v. J.J., finding that decision did not create a general disclosure obligation requiring advance defence disclosure of such material for trial use by the Crown.

The court emphasized that criminal disclosure obligations are not symmetrical and that penalizing defence counsel for responsibly seeking directions would be imprudent.

The Crown was prohibited from using the disclosed materials in direct examination, without affecting Crown re-examination at trial.

The offender pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death under section 220(b) of the Criminal Code.

She left her very young son, who had significant developmental delays and autism spectrum disorder, unattended in a bathtub with approximately 8 inches of water for 2-3 minutes while retrieving laundry.

Upon her return, the child was face down in the water and unresponsive, and was pronounced deceased at the hospital.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months of probation, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence order.

The court found that while mitigating factors existed, the aggravating factors—including the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, and the series of negligent acts following the initial abandonment—warranted a custodial sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assault convictions: one committed in 1987 against a woman in her home using a knife as a weapon, and another committed in 1993 against a young woman in a public area.

The offences were discovered through DNA evidence linking the 1987 assault to the 1993 assault in 2003, with the offender finally identified through genealogical investigation in 2023, approximately 30 years after the second assault.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence (5 years for the first assault, 3 years consecutive for the second), along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order, firearms prohibition, DNA order, and section 743.21 order.

The court rejected the defence position for a conditional sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility required a significant custodial sentence despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas, remorse, and 30+ years without further criminal conduct.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the shooting death of a 17-year-old victim during a drug-related dispute, and to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years' imprisonment less credit for 750 days of presentence custody, broken down as 8.5 years for manslaughter and 1.5 years consecutive for the drug trafficking offense.

The court considered sentencing ranges, aggravating factors including the use of a firearm and the insidious nature of fentanyl, and mitigating factors including the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior criminal history, and harsh conditions in presentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (682.37 grams of 98% pure cocaine) and possession of property (cash of $30,733.00) obtained by crime.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 12 months of probation, finding that despite the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors, the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult personal background, and positive character references warranted a community-based sentence.

The court emphasized that the offender was more than his error and that proportionality, individualization, and the unique circumstances of the case justified departure from the typical sentencing range.

A post-settlement costs determination in a family law matter involving a parenting dispute.

The applicant father sought costs of $344,656.72 on a full indemnity basis, alleging the respondent mother acted in bad faith, made false allegations, and unreasonably prolonged litigation over seven years.

The respondent opposed any costs award, arguing the case settled through compromise and that the applicant drove the conflict.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that objective benchmarks of success are lacking in negotiated settlements and that determining reasonableness on a written record without trial findings would require a mini-trial inappropriate to the costs process.

The offender was sentenced for multiple counts of fraud involving 15 victims and proceeds totalling $178,573.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of six months in jail (after accounting for pre-sentence custody and Duncan credit), followed by three years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a secondary DNA order, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $178,573 payable within five years of release, a Financial Activities Prohibition order for 10 years prohibiting employment in financial or vehicle-related roles, forfeiture of property, and a restitution order requiring minimum monthly payments of $1,000 commencing January 1, 2026.

The court emphasized the serious impact on victims and the need for denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence.

The accused was sentenced following convictions on multiple counts including human trafficking and sexual assault.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2,155 days (5.9 years) less pre-sentence custody of 232.5 days, resulting in a net sentence of 1,922 days (approximately five-and-a-quarter years).

The court applied Downes and Duncan credit as mitigating factors, reducing what would have been a seven-year sentence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime Sex Offender Registry order, ten-year firearms prohibition, non-communication order, and forfeiture of a cellular telephone.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently based on the principle of totality.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Terry Hull, who was shot on July 5, 2023, in Owen Sound, Ontario.

The accused fired two of three shots that killed the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment (net of pre-sentence custody credit), finding the case fell within the upper end of the 8-to-12-year range for manslaughter with significant aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record, possession of modified firearms while prohibited, breach of release and probation orders, and efforts to conceal the body.

The court balanced aggravating factors against the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This endorsement addresses chronic delays in the transportation of accused persons in custody from Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Vanier Centre for Women to the Milton courthouse.

The court highlights the negative impact of these delays on the administration of justice, including lost court time and potential interference with the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The judge notes that previous efforts to resolve the issue have been unsuccessful and emphasizes that the problem is not due to intentional misconduct by staff.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence for James Dobbs, who pled guilty to manslaughter, indignity to a body, and aggravated assault.

The sentence included 16 years for manslaughter, 3 years consecutive for indignity to a body, and 6 years consecutive for aggravated assault, for a total of 25 years less pre-sentence custody.

The court discussed the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, and found the joint submission appropriate given the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Dobbs' criminal history and mental health issues.

The accused, S.J., was charged with sexually assaulting his former employee and friend, M., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The trial was completed in less than a day, with only the complainant and the accused testifying.

The Crown invited the court to acquit, and the court did so, providing reasons.

The court found the accused’s denials unequivocal and unshaken, and even if not accepting the accused’s evidence, found the complainant’s evidence unreliable due to memory gaps and other concerns.

The decision discusses the distinction between credibility and reliability, referencing several appellate authorities.

The court sentenced Matthew Elias, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The decision details the disturbing facts of the offence, Elias’s personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual need for denunciation and deterrence, Elias’s significant mental health issues, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and severe collateral consequences justified a conditional sentence.

The decision applies recent appellate guidance on the range and principles for sentencing in child pornography cases.

The offender, Joshua Drumond, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of Jason Brown.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentencing, noting that while the circumstances of the victim's death were vicious, there were significant triable issues and the guilty plea was highly mitigating.

Justice Conlan sentenced the offender to eight years of imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2,224 days.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.