Dawn McCaig

The sentencing court addressed convictions for two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while also considering proportionality, rehabilitation, and individualized factors from the pre-sentence report.

The court accepted that a custodial sentence was required and rejected a conditional sentence order as inconsistent with the gravity of the offences, the size of the CSAM collection, lack of guilty plea, and limited remorse or accountability.

The court imposed 2 years less a day of incarceration, followed by 36 months' probation, and made ancillary DNA, SOIRA, s. 161 internet-use, and forfeiture orders.

S.S. was convicted of multiple offences, including sexual assault, and the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

S.S. applied to re-open the trial and for habeas corpus based on a recanting affidavit from the complainant.

The court applied the rigorous test for re-opening a defence case after conviction, focusing on the cogency of the new evidence.

The complainant testified that she signed the affidavit under pressure and that its contents were largely untrue, reaffirming her trial evidence.

The court found the recantation lacked sufficient cogency to warrant re-opening the trial, as the complainant's credibility was already thoroughly assessed at trial and there was corroborating evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

Mr. Shultz applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code for a review of a detention order.

The original detention was based on the secondary ground (public safety) due to a lengthy criminal record with violent offences.

A new release plan was proposed with a childhood friend as surety.

The court found the new plan inadequate, citing the proposed surety's lack of awareness of the accused's record and the unreliability of a third party involved in the employment plan.

The court also found detention necessary on the tertiary ground (public confidence in justice administration) due to the gravity of the offences (aggravated assault, attempted drowning) and the Crown's intention to seek a dangerous offender designation, which could lead to indefinite imprisonment.

The application for review was dismissed.

M. D. was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against his granddaughter, M. V., alleged to have occurred in 2008.

The complainant testified that the defendant sexually assaulted her while she was watching television.

The defendant denied the allegations, citing his severe mobility issues due to Paget's disease, which would have made the alleged actions physically impossible within the described timeframe.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding credibility and reasonable doubt.

While finding the complainant believable, the court found the defendant's and his son's evidence regarding his physical limitations credible, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the incident could have occurred as described.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol per hundred milliliters of blood and an open liquor charge under the Liquor Licence Act.

The accused pleaded guilty to the liquor charge and proceeded to trial on the impaired driving charge with a concurrent Charter application alleging six violations.

The court found two Charter breaches: an unlawful search of the accused's backpack at an impound yard and an arbitrary detention resulting from over-holding the accused in custody beyond the time he should have been released.

Applying the Grant analysis under section 24(2), the court excluded the breath sample evidence and acquitted the accused on the impaired driving charge.