Dan Paton

The accused, Donald Wayne Riggs, pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code, involving surreptitious visual recordings of his neighbour, C.A., over several years, including intimate and sexual acts.

The recordings, some made after his initial arrest, caused significant emotional, financial, and practical distress to the victim and her family, forcing them to move.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the duration and intrusive nature of the invasion of privacy, the filming of sexual activity, and the accused's continued behaviour after being caught.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea (though limited by timing) and mental health issues.

The court rejected the accused's claims of non-sexual purpose and insincere remorse, noting his victim-blaming.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the high moral blameworthiness and lack of insight.

The accused, Michael Assefa, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of breathalyzer results, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter right to privacy due to being video-monitored while urinating in a police holding cell.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court found the breach serious and its impact significant, leading to the exclusion of the breath readings.

However, the court dismissed the request for a stay of proceedings, finding it was not one of the "clearest of cases" and an alternative remedy (exclusion of evidence) was available.

Antony Black was charged with drug-related offenses, obstruction, and probation breach.

He sought to exclude drug evidence obtained via a strip search, alleging Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 10(b), 12) during his arrest and search.

The court found a s. 10(b) violation for delayed right to counsel and a s. 8 violation for an unlawful vehicle search.

However, it determined there was no sufficient causal, contextual, or temporal connection between these violations and the drug evidence from the strip search to engage s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Even if engaged, the violations were minor or remedied by the Crown not relying on the vehicle search evidence.

The strip search itself was found to be lawful and conducted reasonably despite the use of force due to the accused's resistance.

Consequently, the drug evidence was admissible, and the accused was found guilty of all charges.

Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty by a jury of sexual assault with another person contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with imposing sentence.

The offenders, sexual predators, lured a 19-year-old complainant, S., to Bohorquez's home for non-consensual sexual activity, which they video recorded.

The court rejected the offenders' claims of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, emphasizing the power imbalance and the complainant's fear.

The impact on the victim was severe, leading to PTSD and a suicide attempt.

Bohorquez was identified as the leader and more aggressive participant, while Siddiqi was an enthusiastic follower.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the aggravated nature of the offence.

Bohorquez was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, and Siddiqi to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to break and enter a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and theft under five thousand dollars.

The Crown sought a global sentence of twelve months less pre-sentence detention credited at 1.5 to 1, followed by three years probation.

The defence sought time served plus two years probation, emphasizing the accused's difficult personal history as a Kurdish Convention refugee and the minimal nature of the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of time served plus one day in gaol on the attempt charge, with fifteen days concurrent on the theft charge, followed by three years concurrent probation.

The court considered collateral consequences under immigration law but found no risk of deportation given the accused's protected status as a Convention refugee.