Dale Henderson

The accused, J.C., was sentenced for criminal negligence causing the death of his six-month-old son.

The child sustained severe burns from a butane torch and died due to the burns and lidocaine toxicity from an ointment applied by J.C., who failed to seek medical attention for two days.

The court accepted a joint submission for an eight-year sentence, emphasizing the high moral blameworthiness, prolonged abdication of parental responsibility, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, despite mitigating factors like a guilty plea and remorse.

The court also noted the inadequate care of the other children.

The accused, R.M.P., was charged with one count of sexual assault against the complainant, A.M. The trial focused on whether the sexual encounter was consensual and if the accused was aware of any lack of consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.D. and R. v. J.J.R.D. The defence theory that the complainant fabricated the allegation due to feeling disrespected was rejected as inconsistent with the evidence, particularly the complainant's immediate demeanour after the incident.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and accepted her version of events, concluding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty.

The court convicted the accused on all counts arising from repeated sexual assaults against a child in a familial setting over an extended period.

The complainant testified by CCTV and adopted her prior video-recorded police statement; the court found her unusually detailed, consistent, and reliable, and rejected defence attacks based on delayed disclosure, alleged inconsistencies, and alternative perpetrators.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the principles governing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the accused evasive, incredible, and prone to unsupported deflection.

The court also expressly rejected myths and stereotypes about how sexual assault complainants are expected to disclose abuse.

Following conviction on ten child sexual offence counts involving a young complainant, the Crown moved to revoke bail pending sentence.

The court adopted the approach that a post-conviction revocation application properly proceeds under s. 523(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, informed by the detention factors in s. 515(10), rather than any presumption that interim release should continue absent cause shown.

Although the accused was not found to be a flight risk, the court held that detention was necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the breach of trust, and the likelihood of a lengthy custodial sentence.

The application was granted and bail was revoked pending sentencing.

The accused pleaded guilty to armed robbery of a pharmacy where he stole 110 bottles and packages of narcotics, including 75 fentanyl patches, using a knife as a weapon.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of two years imprisonment plus presentence custody.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest and imposed a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

The accused's application to withdraw his guilty plea was dismissed.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and determined that withdrawal was not justified in the interests of justice.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police discovered approximately 41 kilograms (90 pounds) of marijuana stored in a rental storage unit.

The accused held Health Canada-issued production licences permitting him to grow 176 plants and possess approximately 17.5 pounds of marijuana at his residence, plus an authorization to possess 450 grams of dried marijuana.

The accused claimed the excess marijuana resulted from an unexpectedly large first crop and that he stored it temporarily while seeking advice from Health Canada on proper disposal, motivated by security concerns following an attempted robbery at a neighbouring grower's property.

The court rejected the accused's explanation as defying common sense, logic, and human experience, finding the accused guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and break and enter following a violent altercation in downtown Brantford.

The victim, who was already blind in one eye, suffered a ruptured left eye resulting in permanent blindness after being attacked by the accused and his uncle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his uncle under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the victim was the one being attacked without provocation and that the accused joined in a one-sided beating of a vulnerable victim.

The break and enter charge was dismissed by Crown concession, but the accused was convicted of aggravated assault as a principal to the offence.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and choking against his 16-year-old cousin.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two to three years, while the defence sought a significantly shorter sentence with creative sentencing approaches including conditional sentences and intermittent sentences.

The court rejected the defence's proposed sentencing approach as violating fundamental sentencing principles and statutory requirements.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to be served concurrently on all charges, followed by two years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and 20-year sex offender registry requirement.

The accused was charged with assault, choking, threatening, and unlawful confinement of his girlfriend.

The complainant initially provided a detailed statement to police alleging violent assault, but later recanted at trial, claiming the injuries resulted from consensual rough sexual activity.

The court found the complainant's trial testimony and recantation to be implausible and internally inconsistent, while accepting her original police statement as truthful based on its detail, consistency with injuries, the complainant's emotional demeanor during the statement, and the voluntary and uncoerced circumstances of its creation.

The court convicted on assault, choking, and threatening charges but acquitted on the unlawful confinement charge due to insufficient evidence of coercive restraint for a significant period.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from an incident on February 5, 2012.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of section 8 rights, contending that the officer lacked a warrant to enter the accused's property and that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples.

The court rejected both Charter arguments, finding that the officer was lawfully present under the common law implied invitation to knock and that the officer had sufficient grounds for arrest based on observations of impairment.

The court admitted the breath sample evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code.

On September 15, 2012, the accused, with a blood alcohol level of 129-134 millilitres per 100 millilitres of blood, failed to stop at a stop sign on Highway 40 in Chatham-Kent, causing his vehicle to break through a guardrail.

His passenger, a close friend, suffered severe head injuries and died.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranted a sentence below the typical range for such offences.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of his former girlfriend on May 24, 2013.

The complainant alleged the encounter was non-consensual, while the accused claimed it was consensual or that he honestly believed it was.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Ewanchuk and found the complainant credible and the accused not credible.

The court determined the complainant did not consent and that the accused was aware of her lack of consent and proceeded regardless.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

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

The Crown sought to rely on the presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged whether the Crown had proven two prerequisites: that the samples were taken as soon as practicable, and that the first sample was taken within two hours of the offence.

The court found the samples were taken as soon as practicable but held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the first sample was taken within the two-hour requirement due to insufficient evidence regarding the consistency of timepieces used.

The charge was dismissed.