David A. Harris

David Ardrey, a police constable, pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining computer service (CPIC/NICHE) by conducting unauthorized queries of a victim's information, contrary to s. 342.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of trust and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior record, and significant collateral consequences.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and community service, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, including no-contact and non-attendance conditions, but declined to impose community service, finding that a conviction was sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

Brandon Clark pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown sought nine months imprisonment, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of 30 days intermittent imprisonment and a concurrent nine-month conditional sentence, along with a two-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives for drinking and driving offences, while also considering the offender's rehabilitation and the significant victim impact.

Mohamed Ali was found guilty of sexually assaulting LSM.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment and ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, no-contact order).

Defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and that nothing short of a penitentiary sentence would be suitable given the gravity of the offence and its significant impact on the victim.

The court also imposed all ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

The accused, Loic Simeu, was charged with unlawful confinement, obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault police, and uttering threats.

He pleaded guilty to obtaining sexual services for consideration but contested the other charges.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (AP), a friend (MM), police officers, and the accused.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the Crown's witness testimonies, particularly regarding the complainant's prior dishonesty with police and failure to provide crucial information during a 911 call.

The court also scrutinized the police officers' accounts of the accused's arrest and behaviour, noting their perceptions were colored by initial misinformation.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charges of threatening, unlawful confinement, and assault police beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their dismissal.

Patryk Myszka pleaded guilty to voyeurism (s. 162(1) Criminal Code) for secretly recording his common-law partner in their home for a sexual purpose.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 5 months followed by 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the offence, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and engagement in counselling.

The judge determined that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest due to the seriousness of the offence, but a conditional sentence was also not necessary.

A suspended sentence with 18 months probation and a forfeiture order for the recording devices was imposed, emphasizing denunciation, general deterrence, and the victim's protection.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence during the cross-examination of a Crown witness in a criminal trial.

The defence sought to ask questions, which the Crown objected to on grounds of relevance and offending section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court found section 276 applicable, adopting reasoning from R. v. Amdurski and R. v. Barton, and ruled on which specific questions could be asked, balancing relevance with the protective purposes of section 276.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Mohamed Ali, who was accused of non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, LSM.

The accused denied vaginal intercourse, claiming other sexual touching was consensual.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D) to assess the conflicting evidence.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and not credible, particularly regarding his statements about ejaculation and his responses to the complainant's accusations.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and corroborated by forensic evidence (presence of the accused's semen in her vagina) and the accused's post-incident text messages.

The court rejected defence arguments based on "rape myths" concerning the complainant's behaviour and found that a breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule by defence counsel did not affect the outcome.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

This is a sentencing decision for Brandon Charles Rusk, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim, including sexual assault, exposing genitals, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment, while the accused sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a one-year term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for life, s. 161 order, weapons prohibition, no-contact).

The judge found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences, the accused's lack of insight into consent, and the significant impact on the victim, despite the accused's recent efforts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as the appropriate sentence exceeded these minimums.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for unlawfully undertaking development within 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland without permission from the Halton Regional Conservation Authority.

The appeal addressed four main issues: the reasonableness of the convictions, alleged infringements of section 7 Charter rights (including disclosure and abuse of process), alleged infringements of section 11(b) Charter rights (unreasonable delay), and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and the Charter applications, finding the convictions reasonable and no Charter breaches.

However, the court partially allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing one appellant's fine, vacating the other's fine and substituting a suspended sentence, and amending the probation order to a one-year term with specific conditions, while upholding the remediation order.

Other counts were conditionally stayed based on the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, Ryan Bhimlal, was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood within two hours of operating a conveyance.

At trial, he challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) (prompt information of reasons for detention), 10(b) (right to counsel without delay), and 8 (unreasonable search/seizure due to samples not taken "as soon as practicable").

The court found no breach of section 10(a) or 10(b), deeming the delays reasonable given the officer's inexperience and the actions taken.

The court also found that failure to take samples "as soon as practicable" is not a section 8 breach, and even if it were, the samples were taken reasonably promptly.

The court also performed a s. 24(2) analysis, concluding that even if a s. 10(b) breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded.

The defendant was found guilty.

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.

This is a sentencing decision for two young men who pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred against Jewish and Black people, contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, by posting hateful and dehumanizing posters in public places.

The Crown sought imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the hate speech and its community impact, and mitigating factors, such as the offenders' youth, lack of prior record, guilty pleas, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community with strict conditions including home confinement, followed by two years of probation with community service and mandatory counselling, rejecting a conditional discharge or suspended sentence as insufficient.

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 was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The accused also challenged whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found the police had reasonable suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds, dismissed the Charter application, and found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession, purchase, or receipt of unmarked cigarettes for the purpose of sale contrary to Section 29(1) of the Tobacco Act.

The Crown sought a fine of $29,819.00 plus 15 months probation.

The defendant sought a suspended sentence with two years probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the statutory minimum fine of $89,959.25 under Section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court considered the defendant's financial hardship, unemployment due to vision loss, administrative penalties totaling $161,310.26, and the fact that the defendant was a delivery person rather than the primary actor in the scheme.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of making child pornography.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on all charges.

The sentencing court imposed a global sentence of five years and three months imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives given the serious nature of the offences involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of young children.

The defendant had abused the trust of close friends by sexually abusing their children and recording the abuse.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender registration requirement, a lifetime prohibition on contact with children under 16, and restrictions on Internet use.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation, all alleged to have occurred in Milton on August 25, 2017.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness identification by the victim's mother (KT) of the accused as the person who attempted to abduct her child.

Although the court found KT to be credible and sincere in her belief, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The identification suffered from significant frailties, including limited observation time, cross-racial identification, and inconsistencies between KT's description and the accused's appearance.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought probation while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for three years, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was a young man, recently arrived in Canada on a student permit, with no prior criminal record, who demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court declined to make a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that a conditional discharge does not constitute a sentence within the meaning of the applicable legislation.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts relating to operating an electrical contracting business without a valid license and failing to file inspection applications.

The trial proceeded in the appellant's absence.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in law by admitting: (1) statements made by the appellant to an investigator without a voir dire on voluntariness and whether the investigator was a person in authority; (2) business records from the Electrical Safety Association without compliance with hearsay exceptions; and (3) evidence regarding identification was properly admitted.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial with the appellant required to appear in person.

The court also commented critically on the sentencing decision, noting the trial judge imposed imprisonment beyond what the Crown requested without proper justification or notice to the absent defendant.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The sole issue was whether the demand for a breath sample was valid, specifically whether it was made "forthwith" as required by law.

The constable delayed approximately five to seven minutes between detecting alcohol on the accused's breath and making the demand, during which time he conducted a records check and reflected on which demand to make.

The court found that the delay was not justified and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the demand was made forthwith.

The charge was dismissed.