Daniel Howard

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced J.S. for assault and sexual assault of his 14-year-old step-sister, JM.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, Indigenous background, and the Gladue report, balancing aggravating factors such as abuse of trust and the nature of the sexual offence with mitigating factors including the offender's willingness to engage in treatment and community support.

The court imposed a two-year less one day conditional sentence with 12 months of house arrest and electronic monitoring, concurrent probation, and various ancillary orders, emphasizing rehabilitation and long-term supervision over incarceration.

Michael Renzi appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and breach of probation, and the imposed sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding an alibi photograph and reached an unreasonable verdict given the totality of evidence, including phone and salon records.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and that the trial judge's verdict was reasonable, having carefully considered all evidence and credibility.

The sentence appeal, alleging the sentence was harsh and excessive, was also largely dismissed, though a probation condition regarding contact with the appellant's daughter was varied by consent to allow contact with her written and revocable consent.

The applicant sought a bail review to vary his release conditions, specifically a no-contact order with his wife, following charges of intimate partner violence.

The complainant provided a full recantation under oath, stating she had embellished the original allegations and wished to resume cohabitation.

The court applied the ladder principle and found that, given the recantation and the applicant's compliance with the original order, the no-contact condition was no longer necessary.

The application was granted, allowing contact subject to the complainant's written and revocable consent.

The accused, D.G., a young person, was charged with sexual assault, sexual intercourse with a female under 14, and incest, relating to alleged acts against his half-sister, S.G., between 1984 and 1985.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of S.G. and D.G. The court applied the W.(D.) analysis.

While the court found D.G.'s denial not credible, particularly regarding a meeting where S.G. claimed D.G. apologized and mentioned Tourette's, the lack of corroborating evidence from an independent witness (F.G.) regarding S.G.'s early disclosure of abuse created a reasonable doubt.

The court found S.G.'s account of writing a letter to F.G. and a subsequent conversation about the abuse to be inconsistent with F.G.'s testimony, leading to a reasonable doubt about the entire account.

D.G. was found not guilty.

The offender was sentenced for multiple counts of sexual assault, choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, and uttering threats against three vulnerable women over a twelve-year period.

The court weighed the profound physical and psychological harm to the victims, the brutal nature of the assaults, and the offender's high risk to re-offend against mitigating factors including his difficult upbringing, severe drug addiction, and pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the totality principle and granting credit for pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a total sentence of 18 years imprisonment.

The accused were charged with numerous weapons offences after police intercepted their vehicle near the border and found a duffel bag containing nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity magazines.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on text messages, the accused's proximity to the bag, and their interactions with the individual who brought the bag into the vehicle.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the contents of the bag, as it was reasonably possible they were simply giving a friend a ride without knowledge of the firearms.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The appellant, Clayton Freamo, appealed his conviction for sexual interference, alleging a faulty credibility analysis by the trial judge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge incorrectly approached the credibility assessment as a "credibility contest" and failed to adequately explain inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons, when read holistically, demonstrated a correct understanding and application of the burden of proof and a careful assessment of the evidence, including the selective belief of parts of the complainant's testimony.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code following an incident on April 3, 2017.

The accused and the complainant were in a former intimate relationship and were engaged in a custody dispute over their seven-year-old son.

During an access visit, a heated argument arose regarding the child's school behaviour.

When the complainant's daughter intervened, the accused applied force to the complainant's chest with his fingertips, causing her to step back.

The accused claimed he made only a waving gesture to move past the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, characterizing it as technical and of an exceedingly minor nature, but nonetheless constituting the intentional application of force without consent.

Following a family law trial in which the respondent secured retroactive and ongoing spousal support, the court addressed the respondent’s claim for costs.

The respondent sought costs calculated at substantial indemnity rates based on counsel’s hourly billing and the applicant’s disclosure failures.

The court reaffirmed that legal aid representation does not reduce the recoverable costs from the opposing party, but held that substantial indemnity was not justified in the circumstances.

Considering the applicant’s disclosure non-compliance and the respondent’s overall success at trial, balanced against the need to avoid impairing the applicant’s ability to pay ordered support, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.