Daniel Kenneth Baker

The sentencing court addressed convictions for two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while also considering proportionality, rehabilitation, and individualized factors from the pre-sentence report.

The court accepted that a custodial sentence was required and rejected a conditional sentence order as inconsistent with the gravity of the offences, the size of the CSAM collection, lack of guilty plea, and limited remorse or accountability.

The court imposed 2 years less a day of incarceration, followed by 36 months' probation, and made ancillary DNA, SOIRA, s. 161 internet-use, and forfeiture orders.

The defendant, Austin Tonkin, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs (fentanyl and cocaine), and the fact they were transported from Toronto to North Bay.

Mitigating factors included his youth (21 at the time of offence), first offender status, remorse, strong rehabilitation prospects, and a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The court found willful blindness regarding the fentanyl.

The primary sentencing principles were general deterrence and denunciation.

The court distinguished Tonkin's case from his co-accused, Anishnabie, who received a conditional sentence due to an early plea, addict-trafficker status, and Gladue factors.

The court concluded a penitentiary term was required, but applied leniency due to mitigating factors and the parity principle.

The applicant was arrested for possession of a Schedule I substance after a drug transaction was observed.

A search of his vehicle revealed cocaine and fentanyl.

At the police station, the applicant was strip searched before being given the opportunity to consult with counsel.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude the drugs found in his car, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breach, as there were reasonable grounds for the strip search.

The court found a s. 10(b) breach because the police failed to allow the applicant to consult with counsel before the strip search.

However, the court concluded that the drugs were not obtained in a manner that breached s. 10(b), and even if they were, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.

The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.

It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.

The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.

The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.

The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.

The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.

The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.

The Crown applied under section 521 of the Criminal Code to vacate a Judicial Interim Release Order and substitute a Detention Order for the accused.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by giving excessive weight to the accused's lack of sureties and insufficient weight to his extensive criminal record, particularly concerning primary and secondary grounds for detention.

The Justice of the Peace also failed to adequately analyze the accused's record, his drug problem, and the unsuitability of the proposed living arrangements.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the immediate detention of the accused.