Clinton Bruce Willson

This sentencing decision addresses three co-accused, James Bolan, Jarrett Jocko, and Gilbert Ryan Wilson, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries from a premeditated and violent vigilante attack.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, pre-sentence custody, and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns (Duncan factors).

Gladue principles were applied for the Indigenous offenders, Bolan and Jocko.

The court rejected the defence's request for time served, imposing a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and 1 year concurrent for unlawful entry, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included DNA orders, lifetime firearms prohibitions (with sustenance hunting exception for Indigenous offenders), and no-contact orders with the victim and a co-accused.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV and with the assistance of a support person in an upcoming jury trial for sexual assault.

The complainant testified to severe anxiety and an inability to provide a full account if testifying in person due to the accused's presence.

The court granted the application, finding that the order would facilitate a full and candid account, balancing the accused's right to confrontation with society's interest in truth-seeking and encouraging the reporting of offences.

The accused, Jesse Lee Bernier (22) and Ty Roger Oliver-Morin (20), pleaded guilty to invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault of a 15-year-old female complainant.

The victim was highly intoxicated at a party, and the offences involved forced fellatio and unprotected vaginal intercourse.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age and vulnerability, the multiple assailants, and the severe psychological impact on the victim (PTSD, suicidal ideation).

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, their young age, expressions of remorse, early guilty pleas, and time spent under stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also the principle of restraint for young first offenders and the objective of rehabilitation.

The accused, Nicholas Berto, was found guilty by a jury of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional and aggressive driving towards a crowd, the severe, life-altering injuries to an innocent bystander, and the subsequent flight from the scene to avoid liability.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, positive pre-sentence report, supportive family, and remorse.

The court rejected the defence's arguments regarding cognitive impairment and the weight of bail conditions.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, the court imposed a total sentence of 24 months imprisonment, a 10-year firearms prohibition, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.

The accused applied for disclosure of contact information for several civilian witnesses who had been interviewed during a homicide investigation but whom the Crown did not intend to call at the preliminary inquiry.

The defence argued that the information was necessary to conduct its own investigation and to prepare full answer and defence under the principles established in Stinchcombe.

The Crown refused disclosure citing specific safety concerns and evidence of intimidation, gang affiliation, and repeated breaches of non‑communication orders by the accused while in custody.

The court held that while witness contact information is generally relevant and normally disclosed, the Crown had established specific and credible security risks justifying withholding the information in this case.

Instead, the court adopted a structured procedure allowing defence counsel to interview willing witnesses at the courthouse while protecting witness safety and confidentiality.

The moving party sought to vary a prior interim order requiring monthly payments of $10,000 to the responding party, requesting a reduction and other financial relief including imputation of income and disclosure orders.

The responding party brought a cross‑motion seeking to strike the moving party’s pleadings for repeated breaches of court orders and to have him found in contempt.

The court found the moving party had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and had not provided sufficient financial disclosure to justify a variation.

The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party wilfully failed to comply with an order requiring the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and made a finding of contempt.

The variation motion was dismissed, the payments were characterized as child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $350,000, and arrears were fixed and payable from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.