David A. Berg

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple firearm-related offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a handgun and ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, knowingly occupying a motor vehicle containing a restricted firearm, uttering a threat to cause death, and breaches of a section 109 firearms prohibition order and probation order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 1825 days, with 1305 days remaining to be served after crediting pre-sentence custody at an enhanced rate of 1.5:1.

The court rejected arguments for a time-served sentence and emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for firearm offences.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography consisting of 6,617 images (742 unique) and 611 videos (603 unique) depicting children between ages 1 and 14 engaged in sexual acts.

The defendant had a prior criminal record consisting of sexual assaults against children in 1996 and 1997.

The court rejected the defendant's late claim of Indigenous heritage for Gladue considerations, found no credit warranted for restrictive bail conditions or rehabilitation efforts, and imposed a sentence of 26 months imprisonment with ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA registration, lifetime section 161 prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized materials.

The defendant was convicted after trial of procuring (s. 286.3), advertising sexual services (s. 286.4), common assault (s. 266), and assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b)).

He was acquitted of human trafficking and related offences.

The victim was a 20-year-old woman with no prior prostitution experience who worked as an escort for one night in September 2015 after being pressured and manipulated by the defendant, her boyfriend.

The defendant arranged clients, set rates, collected all earnings, and later assaulted the victim on two separate occasions in December 2015 and January 2016.

The court applied the Tang factors framework for pimping offences and found the defendant's conduct to be at the lower end of the scale due to its brief duration, lack of force, and limited scope.

The defendant was sentenced to 19 months incarceration (14 months for procuring, 6 months concurrent for advertising, 2 months consecutive for common assault, and 3 months consecutive for assault causing bodily harm), followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and a 250-metre exclusion zone.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault and incest committed against his two sisters between 1991 and 1997.

The Crown sought 18 months secure custody and 6 months open custody followed by probation.

The defence sought probation and community service.

The court imposed a two-year probation sentence to commence on January 2, 2023, after the completion of the accused's adult penitentiary sentence.

The court applied the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration, and considered the totality principle given that any youth custody would be served consecutively to an existing adult sentence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis with evidence applicable to both a Charter voir dire and the trial proper.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, with particular focus on whether the breath samples were obtained "as soon as practicable" and whether the accused's Charter rights were violated.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights when the officer failed to advise the accused of his rights to counsel during the period between the ASD demand and the arrival of the approved screening device.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As a result, the Crown could not prove the charge and the allegations were dismissed.

Following conviction on multiple counts arising from a home invasion of a vulnerable victim in September 2014, and guilty pleas to additional offences committed while in custody, the court imposed a global sentence of 120 months (10 years).

The sentencing considered the principle of parity with a co-accused who received 6.5 years, the absence of a criminal record, the defendant's youth at the time of the offences, and the serious nature of the crimes including robbery, forcible confinement, kidnapping, extortion, and assault causing bodily harm.

Additional consecutive sentences were imposed for attempt to obstruct justice (6 months) and aggravated assault at a detention centre (12 months), with a concurrent sentence for obstructing a peace officer (1 month).

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg/100ml.

The court found that the investigating officer breached the accused's ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights by delaying the approved screening device (ASD) demand and failing to provide rights to counsel while waiting ten minutes for the ASD to arrive.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter, noting the seriousness of the state conduct and inadequate police training regarding Charter rights at the roadside.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to incest and making child pornography involving his teenage daughter.

The offences occurred over a three-week period after the daughter moved in with him.

The court considered the accused's significant criminal record, substance abuse issues, and partial lack of insight as aggravating factors.

The early guilty plea, which spared the victim from testifying, was a significant mitigating factor.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years' incarceration, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, an Indigenous person, was found guilty after trial of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and breaching a bail condition prohibiting him from driving.

The Crown sought six months consecutive on both counts.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months less one day followed by three years of probation, applying Gladue principles.

The court found that despite the accused's significant criminal record, he was at a unique point in his life with a supportive partner, a newborn daughter, and engagement with Indigenous community resources, presenting a genuine opportunity for rehabilitation through a restorative approach rather than incarceration.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and threatening death following an incident at his apartment.

After a night of drinking, an argument erupted between the accused and his girlfriend, which escalated from the bedroom to the hallway and lobby.

The Crown's case relied on two civilian witnesses whose credibility was significantly compromised.

The trial judge found the Crown's evidence unreliable and accepted the accused's version that he bit the complainant in an immediate, unpremeditated reaction to being bitten first.

The court dismissed both charges, finding reasonable doubt on the facts and applying the broader "reflex action" doctrine established in case law.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that her right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

The accused was charged with offences including trafficking in a Schedule II substance and firearm-related offences arising from a search warrant executed in March 2017.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 714 days (approximately 23 months and 12 days).

Applying the Jordan framework, the court calculated net delay of 600 days (20 months) after deducting defence delay.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, as the case was not particularly complex and there were no discrete events beyond the change of counsel.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The defendant sought to qualify Mark Paquette as an expert witness in forensic collision reconstruction in a criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death case.

The court declined to qualify him as an expert in forensic collision reconstruction but accepted that he should be qualified as an expert in the narrower field of preparing computer-generated graphic representations of accident reconstructions.

The court found that while the blind spot analysis methodology did not require expert assistance to understand, the computer-aided generation of graphic representations overlaid on scale diagrams required specialized knowledge beyond the trier of fact's ken.

The Crown sought to qualify Detective Alain Boucher as an expert witness in collision reconstruction in a trial for criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

The accused was charged in connection with a fatal collision involving a truck and a cyclist in downtown Ottawa.

The court declined to qualify the detective as an expert, finding that while the detective was impartial, independent, and unbiased, the evidence was primarily narrative and factual in nature and did not meet the necessity threshold for expert evidence.

The court determined that the trier of fact did not require expert assistance to understand the collision analysis report, surveillance video, re-enactment video, and other materials, as these could be understood by examining the totality of the evidence without specialized knowledge.

The Crown sought to admit an audio-recorded statement made by the accused to a detective investigating a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statement on the basis that the Crown had not proven the "operating mind" component of the common law voluntariness test, specifically arguing that the accused was not aware of the specific criminal charges he might face at the time he made the statement.

The court found that while the accused was not aware of the specific charges, he was aware of the general consequences of speaking to police, including the possibility of jail or fines under either the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act.

The court admitted the statement as voluntary.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of child pornography for the purpose of transmission and possession of child pornography.

The defendant's collection contained 60,165 still images (14,207 unique) and 1,626 videos (1,290 unique) depicting various forms of child sexual abuse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 28 months imprisonment (28 months on the making available count and 18 months on the possession count, served concurrently), along with ancillary orders including a mandatory DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, a 10-year section 161 order, and forfeiture of seized materials.

The sentencing was guided by the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Inksetter, which established that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for child pornography offences.

The Crown brought a motion for summary dismissal of the defendant's Charter s. 11(b) application alleging unreasonable delay, based on the defence's failure to comply with the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice regarding timelines for filing and serving pre-trial applications.

The defence had failed to file materials by the required deadline of March 28, 2018, instead filing on June 18, 2018, just days before trial.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion, finding that although the defence was in clear violation of the Rules, the application met the viability threshold, no prejudice had been caused to the Crown, and constitutional rights should not be easily displaced by procedural non-compliance.

The accused was charged with three firearm offences arising from an incident at a shopping mall in Ottawa on October 2, 2017: careless handling of a firearm contrary to section 86(3) of the Criminal Code, possession of a prohibited/restricted/non-restricted firearm without a licence contrary to section 91(3), and knowing possession of a firearm without a licence contrary to section 92(3).

A fourth count of weapons dangerous was dismissed by the Crown.

The trial proceeded on the basis that the accused picked up a handgun during a violent altercation and removed it from the mall, subsequently abandoning it in the parking lot.

The central legal issue was whether the accused had a lawful excuse for his possession of the firearm under the public duty defence, and whether his disposal of the weapon constituted careless handling.