Craig Houle

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography and sexual assault charges involving his young biological children.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing considerations, citing R. v. Friesen for the need for increased sentences in child abuse cases.

The judge expressed concern over the family's minimization of the victims' harm and the lack of adequate counselling.

A global sentence of 9 years incarceration was imposed, along with ancillary orders including DNA sample, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after setting fire to a neighbour's house with his brother.

The fire caused $150,000 in property damage and destroyed the home.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness was significantly reduced due to his severe cognitive limitations, functioning at the 1st percentile.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's reduced culpability, the court imposed a two-year conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

This sentencing decision addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of intermittent sentences.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and assault.

During judicial pre-trials, an intermittent sentence was discussed, but due to the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) not accepting intermittent prisoners during a COVID-19 outbreak, the judge revisited the sentencing position.

The court ruled that the current inability to serve intermittent sentences as intended constitutes an exceptional circumstance allowing a judge to deviate from a pre-trial agreement.

The judge offered the offender a choice between a 90-day non-intermittent jail sentence or an adjournment to potentially serve an intermittent sentence if EMDC resumes accepting prisoners.

The accused, D.N., was charged with assault, sexual assault, and choking with intent to commit an indictable offence against the complainant, K.B. The defence argued consensual sex on an earlier date, an unknown third-party assailant, and an alibi.

The court found the accused's evidence lacked credibility and common sense, while the complainant's core testimony was believed despite frailties in peripheral details.

The court found the accused guilty of assault and sexual assault, but not guilty of choking with intent, as the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to overcome resistance.

Six accused persons charged with offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and related Criminal Code firearms charges made dissimilar elections as to mode of trial.

Some accused elected trial by judge and jury, while others elected trial by provincial court judge.

Some accused subsequently re-elected without obtaining written Crown consent as required by statute.

The court addressed whether a justice presiding at a preliminary inquiry has residual jurisdiction to remedy or disregard recorded elections to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court held that elections and re-elections as recorded must stand, and that a justice has no power to strike down or disregard a recorded election after the fact.

The Crown sought to introduce an out-of-court audio-recorded statement made by the deceased victim to police approximately two days after an alleged assault.

The victim died of unrelated causes approximately three months after making the statement.

The Crown relied on the principled exception to the hearsay rule to admit the statement as evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the statement met the threshold reliability requirement.

The court found that the victim's capacity to recall events accurately was compromised due to his poor health, medical condition, alcohol consumption, and marijuana use.

The victim's account was disjointed and inconsistent regarding when and where he was struck.

The court also noted significant discrepancies between the victim's account and his mother's corroborating statement.

The court concluded that the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement did not provide sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and that the absence of cross-examination could not be adequately substituted.

The motion was dismissed and the statement was ruled inadmissible.

An application was brought seeking a recognizance to keep the peace against the respondent.

The respondent, having relocated to Alberta and lacking financial means to return, was not present at the hearing.

The court considered four key issues: whether the matter could proceed ex parte with the respondent's agent; whether the respondent was aware of the consequences of failing to enter into a recognizance; whether a law student could appear as agent given the potential for imprisonment exceeding six months; and whether the agent could enter into the recognizance on behalf of the respondent or whether the court could direct entry into the recognizance in another jurisdiction.

The court determined that the hearing could proceed ex parte with the agent present, that the respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences, that section 802.1 of the Criminal Code did not prohibit the agent's appearance in a section 810 proceeding, and that the respondent must personally enter into the recognizance, with any warrant of committal being executable only within Ontario.