David Michael Barrison

This decision addresses sentencing for Jeremy Brown, a 25-year-old with no prior record at the time of offences, convicted of possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, carrying a concealed weapon, careless storage, and knowledge of unauthorized possession.

The case is complicated by Brown’s prior manslaughter conviction involving a firearm, for which he received an 11-year sentence.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the altered serial number, proximity to vulnerable persons, and the dangerous nature of the firearm possession, alongside mitigating factors such as Brown’s age, health condition (sickle cell disease), and social context as a Black man.

The Court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totaling 21 months, to be served consecutively to the manslaughter sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Jeremy Brown, brought a Charter application to exclude a firearm found during his detention, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded a 10(a) breach but argued no other breaches occurred and that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2).

The court found no breach of section 8 or 10(b), and despite the conceded 10(a) breach, determined that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the charges, the reliability of the evidence, and the exigent circumstances faced by the police.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking and procuring three underage boys to provide sexual services to another man.

The offender abused his position of trust as a family friend, exploited the victims' vulnerabilities, and contributed to one victim's cocaine addiction.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two counts.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences against children, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, adjusting the consecutive sentences under the totality principle.

The accused was tried on allegations that he sexually offended against two young complainants and procured three youths to provide sexual services for money to another adult male.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard and the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and unreliable, relying instead on the complainants' evidence where sufficiently supported by text messages and the evidence of the adult purchaser of sexual services.

The court found the complainants' evidence on the direct hands-on sexual allegations against the accused left a reasonable doubt, but the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused used his position as a trusted family friend to influence and facilitate the provision of sexual services for money.

Convictions were entered for human trafficking, procuring, and facilitating offences, with acquittals on the direct sexual offence counts.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual interference against the defendant, D.C., involving his stepson, J.R., who was 10 years old at the time of the alleged assault.

J.R. was the sole witness, testifying via Zoom and through prior video statements to police.

The court assessed J.R.'s testimony, finding him believable and consistent on the core allegation.

However, the court noted a significant lack of specific details, several inconsistencies regarding minor facts, and a complete absence of corroborating evidence.

Applying the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases, the court concluded that despite J.R.'s apparent truthfulness, the evidence was insufficient to be sure that the assault occurred as alleged.

Consequently, D.C. was found not guilty.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code, against an accused whose girlfriend died from diabetic ketoacidosis.

The court found that the deceased was under the accused's charge and that his failure to summon medical aid, particularly by taking a sleeping pill that rendered him insensible, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was objectively foreseeable to a reasonable person, lacking specific medical knowledge of diabetes, that the deceased's symptoms would lead to death or permanent injury within the timeframe affected by the accused's inaction.

The accused was acquitted.

Following convictions after trial for multiple sexual offences against two young children in the offender's care, the court imposed sentence.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in child-sexual-offence sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, the profound actual and potential harm to the children and their caregiver, repeated abuse, grooming conduct, and breach of trust.

The court conditionally stayed overlapping counts under the Kienapple rule, imposed consecutive sentences across the two victims subject to totality, and fixed a global sentence of six years' imprisonment.

Ancillary no-contact, child-protection, SOIRA, DNA, and weapons prohibition orders were also made.

Oral Richards was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant (G.T.), a friend, and forensic experts, while Richards testified in his defence.

The case hinged on conflicting accounts and the reliability of G.T.'s memory, particularly regarding how she entered certain rooms and the consistency of her testimony with DNA evidence.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) to assess credibility and reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and contradictions with forensic DNA, leading to serious doubts about consent and the accused's knowledge of lack of consent.

The charge was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on multiple sexual offences against two child complainants living in his household.

The court carefully assessed child-witness evidence using principles recognizing children's developmental stage while maintaining the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Videorecorded statements admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code were treated as important contemporaneous evidence.

Alleged inconsistencies, possible influence, and suggested collusion were rejected as immaterial, and the accused's denial was not believed and did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a 65-year-old woman, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.522 kilograms of cocaine.

Following numerous adjournments and failures to appear, the court found the accused had absconded and proceeded with sentencing in her absence pursuant to s. 475(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the quantity of cocaine and the nature of the offence against mitigating factors including the accused's age, significant health issues, and personal tragedies.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years, reduced by 12 months for personal circumstances and 24 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 156 days incarceration.

Dante Johnson, arrested for gun and drug offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He asserted two material changes in circumstances: a new, suitable surety (his paternal grandmother) and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown conceded COVID-19 as a material change but opposed release.

The court conducted a de novo assessment, finding the new surety addressed the Justice of the Peace's concerns regarding supervision.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and strength of the Crown's case, the court determined that a reasonable person, informed of Charter values and the specific circumstances (accused's youth, first adult charges, strong release plan), would not lose confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after striking and kicking the victim in the face, causing severe injuries including a broken jaw and orbital bone.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence less pre-trial custody, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's guilty plea, pre-trial custody conditions, and house arrest as mitigating factors, but found the gravity of the offence and the offender's prior record required a custodial sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 1 year in custody less 307 days credit, plus probation, a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and restitution of $14,296.63.

R.D., a 16-year-old, pleaded guilty to 10 counts related to three jewellery store robberies and one attempted robbery.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under Section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would not sufficiently hold R.D. accountable.

The defence sought the maximum youth sentence of three years.

The court found that R.D. demonstrated sufficient maturity at the time of the offences, which were well-planned and violent, and that a youth sentence would not be sufficient for accountability.

R.D. was sentenced as an adult to a global term of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, W.P., was charged with five counts including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and uttering a death threat, against an eight-year-old boy, C.C. The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of C.C.'s evidence, noting inconsistencies, the problematic manner in which police elicited allegations through leading questions, and the malleability of C.C.'s narrative.

The court applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the special considerations for child witnesses but ultimately finding C.C.'s evidence unreliable.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in a restaurant storage room.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony, which was contradicted by the accused's denial.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions, and memory failures regarding significant details, including the appearance of the storage room door, the location of the light switch, and the sequence of events.

The accused's evidence was found credible.

The trial judge concluded that the complainant's evidence was too weak to meet the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s.264(1) of the Criminal Code and distribution of intimate images contrary to s.162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from a relationship that ended in September 2015.

The Crown alleged the defendant criminally harassed the complainant through persistent electronic communications after she made clear she did not wish further contact, and distributed intimate images to her family and friends without consent.

The defendant denied responsibility, claiming they agreed to remain friends and that many communications were not directed at the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on credibility assessments, circumstantial evidence, and objective documentary evidence including text messages and email distribution patterns.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual exploitation and one count of sexual assault arising from allegations by a former young babysitter neighbour over a lengthy period.

The case turned on credibility, with the complainant alleging escalating non-consensual sexual activity and the accused denying all misconduct.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court held that the whole of the evidence left a reasonable doubt, particularly given improbabilities in the account of repeated sexual activity in the family home and the defence evidence about limited babysitting opportunities.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to Over 80 (impaired driving), Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Fail to Stop, and Drive Suspended.

The accused, a transport truck driver, drove while impaired by alcohol on one occasion and subsequently drove while extremely fatigued, fell asleep at the wheel, and struck a victim's vehicle, causing life-altering injuries.

The accused fled the scene and provided a false account to her employer.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 23.5 months, probation, driving prohibitions, DNA order, and victim surcharge, emphasizing the enhanced duty of care owed by commercial truck drivers and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The offender was acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle but found guilty of criminal harassment by indictment.

The court imposed a 15-month custodial sentence with credit for 438 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The sentence addressed the offender's recidivist history of criminal harassment, particularly involving domestic partners, his lack of impulse control, and the ongoing impact on the victim.

The court balanced denunciation and specific deterrence with rehabilitation, emphasizing the offender's need to engage with probationary resources and psychological programming.

The accused, a 42-year-old father of three with no prior record for drug offences, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cannabis on a mid-level scale.

Over an eight-month period, he retrieved quantities of marijuana from a stash house operated by a member of a criminal organization for resale purposes.

The Crown sought 12 months custody plus time served, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year probation, giving full credit for 4.5 months of pretrial custody on a 1.5:1 basis and substantial credit for 16.5 months of house arrest under strict bail conditions.