Daniel Howard Kayfetz

The defendant, Jade Thelwel, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching court orders that prohibited her from communicating or posting online about two individuals, Luke Halstead and Andrei Korottchenko.

These breaches occurred after a sustained online campaign of vilification against the victims, which continued even after police investigations found no basis for her allegations and despite prior release conditions.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious impact on victims and the willful breach of court orders, alongside mitigating factors such as the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, engagement in counselling, and promising career.

The court ultimately granted a conditional discharge, imposing two years of probation with no contact orders and 50 hours of community service, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, and finding it in the public interest given the circumstances.

A young person, JD, pleaded guilty to sexual assault (youth charge) and assault (adult charge) against CD.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the Criminal Code.

Despite the severe psychological impact on the victim and the violent nature of the sexual assault, the court imposed a two-year probation for the youth sexual assault charge, and a conditional discharge with three years probation for the adult assault charge, rather than custody.

The decision was based on JD's low risk of reoffending, his rehabilitation efforts, and the YCJA's emphasis on the least restrictive measures, especially given that sentencing occurred after JD's 20th birthday, meaning any custodial sentence would be served in an adult facility.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a traffic stop and failed approved screening device test, the accused was arrested and advised of his right to counsel.

He requested to speak with his lawyer, Daniel Kayfetz.

After waiting only 20 minutes without reaching the lawyer, police contacted duty counsel without consulting the accused.

The accused was placed in a privacy room where police believed he spoke with duty counsel, but the accused testified he did not speak to anyone.

When asked to provide a breath sample, the accused refused, stating he had not spoken to a lawyer.

The court found that police breached the accused's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel of choice, and excluded the evidence of refusal under section 24(2).

The court also found that even without exclusion, the Crown had not proven an unequivocal refusal beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.