David A. Harris

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following trial.

The Crown sought imprisonment for nine months followed by probation for two years, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration for 10 years, weapons prohibition, and a section 743.21 order.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with strict probation conditions including house arrest.

The court imposed imprisonment for four months followed by probation for three years, with conditions including no contact with the victim, a 20-metre distance requirement, mandatory counselling and sexual offender relapse prevention programming, restrictions on employment in positions of trust involving physical therapy, and ancillary orders for DNA collection, SOIRA registration for 10 years, and weapons prohibition.

A youth was found guilty of sexual assault following trial.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

At sentencing, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months followed by probation for eighteen months, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the serious impact on the victim, and the offender's background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the offence, while serious, fell within the lower end of the spectrum of sexual assault conduct and that a custodial disposition was not necessary given the availability of reasonable alternatives.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought imprisonment of three to six months followed by probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence (premeditation, use of a weapon, stabbing the victim in the back) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, compliance with bail conditions, engagement in counselling, and the impact of COVID-19 on custodial conditions).

The court ordered restitution of $1,500 total, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000 and one count of fraud under $5,000, committed between June 2017 and May 2018.

Working as a part-time receptionist, she created a company credit card and used it for personal expenses totalling $37,834.18, and also misappropriated company funds for personal bills totalling $6,440.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment followed by three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation, with restitution orders and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, exposure of genitals, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old victim.

The accused admitted to committing the physical acts but raised defences of consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent, arguing he believed the victim was over 18 years old and had taken all reasonable steps to determine her age.

The court rejected both defences, finding that the accused had not taken reasonable steps to ascertain the victim's age and that there was no reasonable basis for him to believe the victim had communicated consent.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

A young person was charged with sexually assaulting another young person at a party.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The Crown called the complainant and a witness.

The defence called a witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W(D) and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.

The court found the defence witness to be neither credible nor reliable due to his extreme intoxication, delayed recollection, implausible explanations, tendency to infer facts rather than observe them, apparent motive to fabricate, adoption of a defence advocate role, and inconsistency with accepted evidence.

The court found the complainant to be credible and reliable despite some minor inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant and found him guilty.

A young person pled guilty to robbery in connection with two bank robberies committed in November 2017.

The Crown sought a custody and supervision order for 12 months followed by two years probation.

Defence counsel sought probation for 12 to 15 months.

The court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months followed by one year probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the imitation firearm.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the offences, the implicit threats of violence, the young person's background including trauma and systemic factors, expressions of remorse, lack of prior record, and compliance with bail conditions over 33 months.

Following trial, the defendant was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months to be served in the community, finding that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and that a suspended sentence would be insufficient, while a conditional sentence was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery using a firearm and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle with recklessness as to life or safety.

The offences occurred on July 11, 2017, in Burlington, Ontario.

The accused responded to an online advertisement for sexual services, and after a dispute with the service provider, returned to the motel armed with a firearm.

He robbed the motel clerk at gunpoint and later returned to shoot at a vehicle carrying the service provider and her driver.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of eight years imprisonment, with credit for 735 days of pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The court rejected the defence submission for a provincial sentence at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre, finding insufficient evidence that such placement would better serve the principles of sentencing.

The accused, a therapy assistant at a home care agency, was charged with sexually assaulting an elderly male client.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the complainant's penis without consent during a physiotherapy session.

The accused claimed he was conducting a medical examination to assess for signs of infection or inflammation.

The court found that the accused intentionally applied force to the complainant's penis without communicated consent, that the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature violating the complainant's sexual integrity, and that the accused's explanation for the touching was not credible.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

A York Region paralegal regional prosecutor was charged with breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from her involvement in Provincial Offences Act prosecutions where she allegedly used her position to improperly influence outcomes.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications between the accused and a police officer showing discussions about favorable dispositions for individuals connected to the officer.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on both counts based on evidence relating to two specific events: the Carlton Wills matter and the Nicholas Guarino matter.

The judge found that the accused had breached her duty by giving preferential treatment based on personal relationships rather than proper prosecutorial discretion.

The accused was charged with breach of trust by a public officer and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

The accused applied to exclude her statement to police on the basis that her Charter rights were infringed.

The court found multiple breaches of section 10(b) rights (right to counsel) and section 8 rights (protection against unreasonable search and seizure).

The police failed to immediately inform the accused of her right to counsel, delayed providing access to counsel without reasonable justification, and obtained the accused's phone password before she had an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The court excluded the statement under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that all three Grant factors favored exclusion.

The accused, a York Region paralegal regional prosecutor, was charged with breach of trust by a public officer and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

She brought an application to stay the charges or exclude evidence, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 11(d) based on the disclosure and use of a Substantive Event Summary containing intercepted communications.

The court found no violation of the accused's Charter rights and dismissed the application, finding that the police disclosure fell within statutory exemptions and was carried out reasonably.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought 21 months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional sentence or intermittent imprisonment of 90 days.

The court imposed 9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, rejecting both a conditional sentence and intermittent imprisonment as inconsistent with sentencing principles for child pornography offences.

The court emphasized that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for such offences, particularly given the serious nature of child sexual abuse material and the re-victimization of children each time such material is viewed.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 committed between May 2, 2012 and March 1, 2016.

As Power of Attorney for her mother's personal care and property, the accused depleted her mother's bank accounts and investments by approximately $161,000, spending the money on gambling, living expenses, and overseas travel.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions prohibiting the accused from holding positions of trust and requiring counselling.

A stand-alone restitution order of $161,000 was made in favour of the estate.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment; defence counsel sought 6 months with credit for bail conditions.

The court imposed 10 months imprisonment followed by 2 years probation, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a no-contact order with co-accused.

The court balanced aggravating factors (two bank robberies, use of imitation firearm, vulnerable victims) against mitigating factors (youth, guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, family support, educational pursuits).

The accused pleaded guilty to procuring a minor to be a prostitute, receiving a financial benefit from prostitution, and advertising sexual services.

The offences occurred over a nine-day period in February 2018.

The accused groomed and exploited a 17-year-old victim with developmental delays, controlling her work as an escort and retaining most of the financial proceeds.

The court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment concurrent on all charges, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The robberies involved the use of an imitation firearm at two pharmacies on the same day.

The assault occurred months later when the defendant, under the influence of cocaine and fentanyl, assaulted his mother, causing her a concussion.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for the robberies (concurrent) and six months imprisonment for the assault (consecutive), for a total of six and one-half years.

The court considered the defendant's prior robbery conviction, his substance abuse issues, his family support, and his guilty plea in determining the appropriate sentence.

The accused was convicted following trial of assault, mischief to property (two counts), and sexual assault against his domestic partner over a period spanning from January 2015 to January 2017.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The defence sought a shorter custodial sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by three years probation on the sexual assault charge, with concurrent one-day sentences on the remaining charges.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while also accounting for the accused's lack of prior criminal record, positive background, and difficult childhood.

The accused pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a male (1981-1982), sexual interference (2005-2006), and breach of recognizance (December 22, 2018).

Following sentencing on March 18, 2019, one of the victims requested that the publication ban imposed under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code be lifted with respect to himself and another victim.

The court granted the application, finding that the circumstances making the publication ban mandatory were no longer present, as both adult victims consented, the Crown consented, and the accused took no position.

The court confirmed that a judge other than the one who made the original order has jurisdiction to hear such applications.