Denis Michel

The accused, Donovan McEwan, was charged with five offences: sexual assault, communicate with a person under 18 to facilitate an offence, obtain the sexual services of a person under 18, procuring, and possession of child pornography.

A sixth charge, forcible confinement, was withdrawn.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible despite inconsistencies, attributing them to drug addiction and trauma.

The court found a power imbalance due to the complainant's drug dependency on the accused, negating consent for sexual acts.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, internet luring, obtaining sexual services of a person under 18, and possession of child pornography.

He was acquitted of procuring due to insufficient evidence that he caused or induced the complainant to offer sexual services for another.

Karen Cady was found guilty of fraud and possession of forged documents.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of proceeds of crime and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The court ordered forfeiture of real property and a motor vehicle, but exercised its discretion under s. 462.41 of the Criminal Code to return a portion of the sale proceeds to innocent third-party secured creditors, Computershare Trust Company of Canada and TD Auto Finance (Canada) Inc., to satisfy their legitimate interests.

A fine in lieu of forfeiture of $928,063.61 was imposed on Cady for the remaining proceeds of crime, with an 8-year payment period and a 4-year default imprisonment term.

Karen Cady pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer, Henninger’s Diesel Ltd., of over $1 million and possessing a forged document.

This was her third fraud conviction, with previous offenses also involving employers.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust, magnitude and sophistication of the fraud, its duration, and the significant impact on the victim company and its employees.

Mitigating factors included her guilty plea.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a four-year penitentiary term, a 10-year prohibition from positions of financial trust, a non-communication order, and a restitution order for the full amount of the loss.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference relating to three historical incidents alleged by the complainant, who was a child at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding two incidents in her bedroom lacked sufficient reliability to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals for those events.

However, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, corroborated by the accused's admissions to family members, regarding a third incident where the accused touched the complainant's vagina with his mouth.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault for this incident, with the sexual assault charge stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused pleaded guilty to break and enter with assault with a weapon, possession of a schedule 1 substance, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The accused was released on strict conditions pending sentencing but breached those conditions by removing his GPS ankle monitor and fleeing court.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 months custody for the break and enter charge, 3 months concurrent for other charges, and 24 months probation with conditions including abstinence from illicit drugs, employment requirements, and no contact with victims.

The court considered COVID-19 impacts on incarceration but found the jail conditions at Sudbury were adequately managed.

The accused, John Leach, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code of Canada, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and a new plan of care as a material change in circumstances.

The accused, a 44-year-old with no criminal record, faced over 20 charges including domestic offences, human trafficking allegations, and weapons offences.

The court conducted a bail hearing de novo.

While the primary ground for detention was not met, the court found that detention was necessary on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The proposed plan of care was deemed insufficient to mitigate the risk of reoffending, particularly given the serious nature of the firearms charges (possession of non-hunting weapons, including a sawed-off shotgun and pistols, after a police standoff).

The court also considered the impact of COVID-19 but found it did not substantially alter the analysis in this specific case.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for multiple charges including assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The applicant argued the Justice of the Peace erred in rejecting the initial surety and that new circumstances, including a revised release plan with a second surety, ankle bracelet monitoring, and the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted release.

The court dismissed the application, finding no error in the initial surety rejection and that the new plan, despite the pandemic, did not sufficiently address the flight risk, likelihood of re-offending, or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused, G.D., was charged with two counts of sexual assault against two teenage male complainants, PT and WV, occurring between 1997 and 2001.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from each count as similar act evidence for the other.

The court found both complainants credible and reliable, despite their substance abuse and the passage of time, noting specific details and corroboration from other witnesses and the accused's own testimony.

The accused's denials were found evasive, self-serving, and unbelievable.

The court granted the Crown's application for similar act evidence, finding a distinctive pattern of conduct.

The judge concluded that the Crown proved the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt for both counts, leading to findings of guilt.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to arrest, arguing the search violated section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on information from three reliable confidential informants.

The court further found that the search, conducted in a public parking lot, did not constitute a strip search as defined by the Supreme Court and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for bail review after the accused’s original surety withdrew and the justice of the peace permitted substitution of a new surety without vacating the recognizance.

The Crown argued that once the accused was rendered into custody by a surety under s. 766 of the Criminal Code and committed to prison, the recognizance was vacated and a new bail hearing was required under s. 769.

The court agreed with the reasoning in recent jurisprudence rejecting the view that simple substitution of a surety is available after committal.

The court held that once an accused is rendered and committed to custody, a new judicial interim release hearing must occur and the substitution procedure in s. 767.1 is unavailable.

The court further held that the Crown is entitled to notice and the opportunity to make submissions on applications involving substitution or assessment of sureties.