Cynthia Nicole Jennison

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender based on the sexual offender pathway, finding a high likelihood of future harmful recidivism due to disturbing cognitive distortions, lack of empathy, and personality disorder traits.

However, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (plus 7 years and 15 days pre-sentence credit, totaling approximately 15 years) followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order, rather than an indeterminate sentence, finding a reasonable expectation that the offender's risk could be managed in the community with appropriate treatment and supervision.

This is an application by the Crown under sections 486.1(1), 486.2(1), and 715.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada regarding the admissibility of a videotaped statement of the complainant in an alleged sexual assault case.

The primary issue was whether the videotaped statement, made approximately 3 years and 5.5 months after the alleged incident, was recorded within "a reasonable time" as required by section 715.1.

The court considered the objectives of section 715.1, reasons for delay, and the impact on the complainant's recollection, distinguishing the facts from other cited cases.

The court found the delay reasonable given the complainant's age at the time of the assault (12) and the common reluctance of sexual assault victims to report incidents, allowing the Crown's application.

The accused was charged with assault following an incident on March 10, 2018, at the home of the complainant.

The complainant answered the door to a stranger who claimed to be visiting a friend.

After several brief encounters, the lights went out and the complainant was attacked.

The two main issues were whether the Crown proved the accused was the assailant and whether the physical contact was intentional or accidental.

The court found that the complainant's account could only be interpreted as an intentional assault, ruling out accident.

The court also found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant based on the complainant's identification evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including a taxi driver's near-contemporaneous observations and the accused's statements in the taxi.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, making child pornography available, and agreeing by telecommunication to commit an offense under section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought 18 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years in custody, with credit for 315 days of pretrial custody enhanced at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing principles in child pornography cases, particularly given the egregious nature of the written material discovered in chat logs that reached the highest level of depravity on the Oliver scale.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a disguise arising from a February 18, 2018 incident at a Petro Canada gas bar.

The accused, in his mid-40s with an extensive criminal history dominated by penitentiary time, entered the gas bar with his hood up and a knife, demanding cash from the clerk.

After obtaining the money, the accused was seen by the clerk who photographed the vehicle.

The accused threatened to kill the clerk.

The accused was arrested that evening, cooperated with police, and demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed a sentence of five years and six months, comprising 48 months for robbery plus 6 months consecutive for the disguise, with 195 days of pretrial custody credited at 1.5 times.

The accused was charged with assault for allegedly spanking his five-year-old daughter excessively on March 7, 2017, contrary to Section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of severe bruising to the child's buttocks consistent with multiple forceful impacts by an adult hand, and the accused's proximity to the child during a stressful morning.

The defence challenged the Crown's burden of proof and the reliability of the accused's post-arrest statement.

The court found that while the accused was the most likely suspect, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's exculpatory statement, corroborated in part by the mother's testimony, created reasonable doubt that could not be dispelled by the circumstantial evidence alone.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

Digital devices seized from the accused's residence contained 71 images and four videos meeting the Canadian definition of child pornography.

The images were categorized as Category 4 on the Oliver scale.

The accused demonstrated genuine remorse and had engaged in counselling.

The court sentenced the accused to 180 days imprisonment, imposed a DNA databank order, a ten-year SOIRA reporting obligation, and a five-year section 161 prohibition order with specific restrictions on contact with minors and internet usage.

A one-year probation order with conditions for assessment and counselling was also imposed.

Clark Eric Sauve was convicted of second-degree murder of his wife, Linda Sauve.

The court considered aggravating factors including attempts to deflect culpability, lack of remorse, elements of planning, use of a gun, and domestic homicide.

Mitigating factors included his age (62), lack of criminal record, prior good character, and significant health issues and depression.

The court applied sections 745(c) and 745.4 of the Criminal Code to determine parole ineligibility.

Citing R. v. Shropshire and R. v. McKnight, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The trial judge addressed three key issues: (1) whether the Crown should be permitted to reopen its case to lead evidence that samples were provided directly into the approved instrument; (2) whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that samples were received directly into the approved instrument; and (3) whether the tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The Crown was denied leave to reopen.

However, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that samples were provided directly into the instrument and that the tests were conducted within a reasonably prompt timeframe.

The accused was convicted.