Courtney Dawn Cottle

Martin James Stover, a former investment adviser, was charged with theft, fraud, and obstructing a police officer in relation to funds provided by two former clients, Harry and Cheryl Whitehead and Peter Voight.

The court found that Stover fraudulently took $150,000 from the Whiteheads and $75,000 from Voight, neither of which was returned or properly accounted for.

Stover’s explanations were found to be implausible and evasive, and his conduct toward the investigating officer was found to be obstructive.

The court convicted Stover of two counts of fraud and one count of obstructing a police officer, staying the theft charges pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, R.W., was convicted of sexually assaulting D.N. and H.W., and touching them while under 16.

The offences occurred on the same day in 2018.

H.W. was the defendant's niece, 14 years old, and D.N. was a friend.

The Crown sought a 5-year imprisonment, while the defence proposed 3-4 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victims' age, abuse of trust (for H.W.), and the defendant's alcohol issues and prior impaired driving convictions.

Mitigating factors included no prior history of sexual violence and a supportive relationship.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and deterrence for child abuse, and guided by R. v. Friesen and R. v. Poulsen, the court imposed a total sentence of four years' imprisonment, with concurrent terms for each victim served consecutively.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order (adjusted from lifetime due to R. v. Ndhlovu), a mandatory DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that a police traffic stop was an unlawful pretext to identify him for a drug investigation, violating his ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the stop was an arbitrary detention and an unreasonable search, and that the applicant was not informed of the true reason for detention or his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct, which demonstrated indifference to Charter rights and appeared systemic, outweighed society's interest in the adjudication on the merits, despite the high reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was granted.