David Isbester

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for stabbing his 18-year-old stepbrother to death.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment was imposed.

The Crown sought an 18-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the familial relationship, the victim's vulnerability, and the offender's criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as remorse.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, incest, and sexual interference arising from repeated allegations of intrafamilial sexual abuse against his young daughter over several years.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable despite delayed disclosure, difficulties with dates and timing, and the absence of physical injury or direct corroborative evidence.

The court rejected submissions based on myths and stereotypes about disclosure, demeanour, opportunity, and continued positive feelings toward the accused.

The complainant's detailed account, corrections during her police interview, and some circumstantial consistency with other evidence supported conviction on all counts.

The accused, Brandon Aubin, faced four charges: three Criminal Code offences related to a residential basement fire and one Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) offence for Butane honey oil production.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on expert fire investigation evidence.

The defence presented an alternative fire origin theory and the accused testified, denying the introduction of Butane.

The court dismissed the mischief endangering life charge but found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the two arson charges and the CDSA production charge, concluding that the fire was caused by the ignition of Butane vapour introduced by the accused shortly before the incident.

The accused, Kimber-Lee Long, sought a bail review after being denied bail for serious charges including robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and drug offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused's progress in custody, and a new, more suitable surety.

The court was satisfied that the proposed release plan, including house arrest with the surety, mitigated the risks on both secondary and tertiary grounds, and released the accused on a recognizance with a surety.

Sentencing for incest contrary to the Criminal Code arising from repeated sexual activity between a father and his developmentally delayed adult daughter over approximately four months.

The court treated the complainant's cognitive functioning and dependency as making her highly vulnerable, and placed primary emphasis on denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, and rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors included the offender's prior sexual record, repeated misconduct, minimization of responsibility, and the exploitative breach of a parental trust relationship.

A penitentiary sentence at the high end of the applicable range was imposed, together with SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

A voir dire concerning the lawfulness of an arrest and subsequent searches.

The accused was arrested on the 401 highway based on information from a Toronto drug investigation targeting a different individual.

The Crown sought to uphold a warrantless strip search and vehicle search as incidental to arrest.

The court found that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the searches unlawful.

The court also found that the deliberate denial of the accused's right to counsel for 9.5 hours constituted a Charter breach.

Evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused, a young person at the time of the alleged offences, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a younger male cousin for incidents occurring between 1999 and 2005.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of statements made by the accused to police prior to and following his arrest.

The court found that the police breached the accused's Charter rights by failing to obtain a warrant before entering the accused's home to effect an arrest, misleading the accused about the existence of a warrant, and deliberately delaying the provision of the right to counsel.

The court excluded all statements made by the accused as inadmissible evidence.