Dominique Kennedy

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and uttering threats against his spouse after an unprovoked attack that left her with a fractured jaw requiring surgery.

The Crown sought 3.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 30 months' imprisonment for the aggravated assault, with a concurrent 6-month sentence for uttering threats.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat and aggravated assault against his spouse following a party at their residence.

The Crown alleged the accused became enraged upon finding the complainant with another man, threatened to kill her, and struck her multiple times, fracturing her jaw.

The accused denied the allegations, suggesting the injuries resulted from a fall.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's exculpatory evidence as unbelievable and found the complainant's testimony corroborated by physical evidence, a 911 call, and the accused's adoptive admission by silence in text messages.

The accused was found guilty of both counts.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The accused, an estranged partner of the complainant, allegedly sought to punish the complainant for limiting his access to their children through threats and intimidation in Family Court proceedings, distribution of intimate photographs at the complainant's workplace, and coercion to change testimony regarding custody.

The court found the accused guilty of Utter Death Threat, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, and Criminal Harassment.

The charge of Disobey Court Order was dismissed.

The court found the accused's aggressive and controlling behaviour during Family Court proceedings corroborated the complainant's testimony regarding threats and intimidation.

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court statements made by a four-year-old child alleging child abuse.

The statements were hearsay and presumptively inadmissible.

The defence challenged whether threshold reliability had been established, arguing the statements were inconsistent, lacked a promise to tell the truth, and had never been subject to cross-examination.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and found the statements substantively reliable based on the circumstances in which they were made, the open-ended questioning, the identity of the recipients as trusted individuals, the temporal proximity to the alleged assault, and corroborating physical evidence.

The court admitted all of the child's utterances, including inconsistent statements, for trial.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The charges arose from allegations that the accused pressured his estranged spouse over custody and access to their two young children.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct from 2012, including the dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant at her workplace.

The court admitted evidence of the 2012 schoolyard incident as prior discreditable conduct, finding it strikingly similar in detail and highly probative of motive and identity, while excluding other earlier misconduct as insufficiently distinctive.

Howard Smith was convicted of robbery after a jury trial, following an incident where he and a co-accused robbed a victim in a motel room.

While the co-accused perpetrated the choking and forcible confinement, Smith was convicted solely of robbery.

The Crown sought a 12-15 month custodial sentence, emphasizing the aggravating factor of the offense occurring in a "dwelling-house" (motel room) and the victim's traumatic impact.

The defense requested a suspended sentence, highlighting Smith's lack of prior criminal record, rehabilitative prospects, and the opportunistic nature of the crime.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, imposing a sentence of 120 days in custody followed by 2 years' probation, along with a DNA order and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

Four young persons pleaded guilty to assault offences stemming from a brutal, unprovoked attack on two victims at a sweet sixteen party on July 29, 2012.

Z.N. wielded a machete and inflicted the most serious injuries, including a deep gash to one victim's neck exposing the spine.

The other three young persons participated in the assault through punching, kicking, and one carried a knife.

The court imposed custodial sentences with probation, with Z.N. receiving the longest sentence due to his role as the primary assailant.

The court applied Youth Criminal Justice Act principles, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration while considering each young person's individual circumstances and degree of culpability.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 66-year-old vulnerable woman with a weapon in the maintenance room of an apartment building.

The assault involved forced fellatio, attempted anal penetration, forced crack cocaine use, and vaginal intercourse without protection.

The victim suffered severe physical injuries and devastating long-term psychological trauma including post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less 14 months pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 5 years and 4 months incarceration, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registration Act compliance.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a student during the 1994-95 school year when the complainant was 13-14 years old.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in inappropriate sexual contact including kissing, hand-holding, and masturbation over several months.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming his conduct was limited to appropriate academic support and encouragement.

The trial judge found significant reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding recovered memories obtained through therapy and the provenance of an Italian pendant allegedly given as a gift.

Although the judge found the complainant's testimony generally credible and preferred it over the accused's evidence, the judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns and reasonable doubt arising from the accused's testimony.