Craig A. Brannagan

The offender pleaded guilty to eight charges, including one count of assault causing bodily harm against a stranger and seven counts involving his former intimate partner, including assault by choking and assault with a weapon.

The court found the intimate partner violence involved a sustained pattern of coercive control and significant physical and psychological harm.

Despite the offender's rehabilitative efforts and strict bail compliance, the court declined to impose a conditional sentence order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 365 days in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 24 months of probation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg after driving his vehicle into a ditch.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) right to counsel, arguing there was an unjustified delay in reading his rights and that police comments undermined his confidence in duty counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the brief delay was justified by safety concerns and the accused's extreme intoxication, and that the accused never elected to speak with counsel.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in findings of guilt.

A corporate appellant appealed convictions and sentence under the Environmental Protection Act for depositing waste at an unapproved site and transporting waste without approval.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the finding that the appellant hauled waste from a known waste-laden source site to the destination property, and that competing-source theories were speculative.

The due diligence defence failed because the appellant took no independent steps to verify that the material was clean fill and relied solely on a customer's verbal assurance in a heavily regulated environmental context.

The court also held that the two offences were legally distinct for Kienapple purposes, found the reasons sufficient, and upheld the total fine of $50,000 as fit.

The offender was found guilty of arson, assault with a weapon, and making an explosive device after deliberately burning down his landlord's home and setting a secondary fire at a neighbouring property.

The fires caused catastrophic damage, completely destroying the landlord's home and causing over $200,000 in damage to the neighbour's property.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of time served (629 days credit) plus one day, three years of probation, and over $330,000 in restitution, noting the offender's mental health issues, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and the significant restitution order as mitigating factors.

The young person pleaded guilty to voyeurism and distributing an intimate image after recording a consensual sexual encounter with a classmate and showing the video to her ex-boyfriend.

The Crown sought 18 months' probation, while the defence sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The court analyzed the legal distinctions between a conditional discharge and probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that a conditional discharge is a meaningfully distinct sentence with a shorter record access period.

Balancing the gravity of the offences against the young person's strong rehabilitative progress, the court imposed a conditional discharge with an 18-month term of conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death after a momentary lapse of attention resulted in her vehicle striking and killing an elderly pedestrian.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, emphasizing the regulatory nature of the offence, the accused's lack of prior record, her genuine remorse, and the tragic consequences of the collision.

The accused was sentenced to a $2,500 fine, a victim fine surcharge, and a 12-month probation order with restricted driving privileges and community service.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud under $5,000 after holding himself out as a licensed paralegal and accepting funds from two victims for legal services he was not qualified to provide.

The court found the offences involved a serious breach of trust that undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.

Given the offender's prior convictions for similar conduct and the high risk of re-offending, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a 6-month custodial sentence followed by 18 months of probation and full restitution.

The accused brought a Stage Two application under section 278.92 of the Criminal Code to adduce text messages between himself and the complainant.

The court weighed the probative value of the messages against the danger of prejudice, considering the statutory factors.

The court found that messages relating to mundane relationship matters were inadmissible as they lacked significant probative value and risked distracting from material issues.

However, messages relating to the breakdown of the relationship were ruled admissible, subject to redaction, as they were relevant to the defence theory of a motive to fabricate.

The application was allowed in part.

The offender, a financial advisor, pleaded guilty to defrauding 25 victims of over $1.8 million over a seven-year period.

The court found the offending to be a grave breach of trust involving sophisticated planning, forged documents, and vulnerable victims.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 5.5 years in a federal penitentiary, ordered restitution of over $560,000, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of over $1.3 million, and issued a 20-year prohibition order.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought a Stage One application under s. 278.93 of the Criminal Code seeking to adduce a Discord message allegedly sent to him by the complainant.

The accused argued the message was not a 'record' under s. 278.1.

The court found that the message, which contained expressions of affection and a request not to share it, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy and was therefore a non-enumerated record.

The court further held that the message was capable of being admissible as it was relevant to the complainant's credibility, and granted the application to proceed to a Stage Two hearing.

In a criminal pretrial evidentiary ruling in a sexual-offence prosecution, the court determined cross-applications by the prosecution and the accused regarding prior discreditable conduct and defence-held records under Criminal Code ss. 278.92 and 278.93.

Applying the governing admissibility framework, the court held that the prosecution’s proposed background and narrative bad-character evidence lacked sufficient material relevance and probative force, and that its prejudicial risks outweighed any limited value.

On the accused’s application, the court held family law materials were not "records" under s. 278.1, dismissed portions linked to a now-moot response theory, and declined to assess sexual-activity messages absent a proper s. 276 application.

The court found selected text-message tabs were capable of meeting the Stage One threshold by supporting a potential motive-to-fabricate theory and directed those materials forward to Stage Two.

In this criminal trial on a charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code, the central issue was whether the accused possessed a concealed machete for a peaceful purpose or for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The defence argued a culinary purpose tied to purchasing coconuts and sugar cane and submitted the machete was swung once in self-defence after an unprovoked punch.

The court accepted the independent civilian and police evidence, rejected key parts of the accused’s testimony as implausible and unreliable, and found the post-incident handling of the machete supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.

Applying the governing framework for s. 88 offences and the proportionality analysis under s. 34 self-defence principles, the court concluded the possession was for an offensive dangerous purpose.

The accused was convicted.

The accused, a police officer charged with historical sexual assault and other offences against his ex-wife, applied under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of third-party police records relating to the complainant's Mental Health Act apprehensions and an ex parte restraining order.

The accused argued the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and motive to fabricate.

The court allowed the application in part, ordering the production of records from May 9, 2023, and August 6, 2024, for judicial inspection, finding they were logically probative to a potential motive to fabricate based on the timing of the complaints.

The request for the remaining records was dismissed as they were deemed immaterial and of trivial probative value.

On a Stage One application under ss. 276, 278.92, and 278.93 of the Criminal Code, the accused sought to adduce text messages, sexually explicit live photos, evidence of other sexual activity in the hotel room, prior alleged anal sex, and evidence of an alleged commercial sexual relationship including a refusal to pay.

The court held that the text messages, live photos, and other sexual activity in the hotel room were integrally connected to the charged event and formed part of the subject-matter of the charge, though the text messages and live photos still engaged the private-record regime under s. 278.92.

The text messages were capable of admission and could proceed to Stage Two, but the live photos were excluded at this stage without prejudice because their probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The prior alleged anal sex was incapable of admission because it came perilously close to impermissible twin-myth reasoning, while the alleged commercial relationship, payment habit, and refusal to pay were capable of admission and could proceed to Stage Two.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to nine indictable offences arising from firearm possession, mid-level methamphetamine trafficking, two forcible confinements, and breaches of weapons and release orders across Barrie and Belleville matters.

The court treated the offender as a deeply entrenched criminal offender whose loaded handgun was used as a tool of the drug trade to intimidate and confine two vulnerable victims, while also emphasizing the toxic combination of guns and hard drugs.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public interest test, the court accepted a joint submission for a 10.5-year penitentiary sentence despite viewing it as generous and perhaps very lenient.

Consecutive terms were structured with attention to proportionality and totality, with 611 days' credit for pre-sentence custody and ancillary DNA, firearms prohibition, and no-contact orders.

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences against his three children, sought production of child protection records held by Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions (SMFC) from 2016, 2018, and 2022 under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and complainants conceded that 2024 records directly related to the charges could be produced.

The applicant sought the earlier records claiming they were likely relevant to family dynamics and the complainants' credibility.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish that the disputed records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to witness competency, and that production was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The court emphasized that child welfare records attract high privacy protection and that the applicant's status as the parent of the complainants does not diminish the complainants' privacy interests.

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness (the former intimate partner of the accused) to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom and in the company of a support person in a trial for breach of a recognizance.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the witness should testify in-person behind a privacy screen.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the witness would experience psychological and physiological distress if required to testify in the presence of the accused, and that CCTV and a support person would facilitate her ability to provide full and candid testimony.