David A. Berg

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, 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.