Doug Gosbee

The accused was charged with sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code for allegedly touching a child under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose during a family gathering at a cottage on Wasauksing First Nation territory in July 2008.

The complainant, now an adult, testified that the accused entered the bedroom where she was sleeping and sexually assaulted her.

The defence presented evidence suggesting the accused was at a campfire with other family members and did not have the opportunity to commit the alleged offence.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence could not be wholly rejected, the Crown failed to meet the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt when considering the totality of the evidence, including significant inconsistencies between witnesses and credibility concerns.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicants, L.H. and D.P., charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death, and failing to provide necessaries of life, brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total elapsed time against the Jordan ceiling, considering periods of delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and defence actions as exceptional circumstances.

The court found that after deducting these periods, the delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

Furthermore, the court determined that the defence had not taken meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case had not taken markedly longer than it reasonably should have, dismissing both applications for a stay.

This is a sentencing decision for Rychez Leslie, a young Black man, who pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and failing to stop for police.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly deterrence, denunciation, restraint, and rehabilitation, in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Morris regarding social context evidence and anti-Black racism.

Despite the seriousness of the firearm offence, the court found that Leslie's strong rehabilitative potential, lack of prior record, and positive post-arrest activities, coupled with his lived experiences in a high-violence community, mitigated his personal responsibility.

The court imposed a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) of 2 years less 1 day for the firearm offence, concurrent with a 6-month CSO for the driving offence, followed by a 1-year probation, a 1-year driving prohibition, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The accused was found guilty of firearm, ammunition, and drug charges, as well as breaching court orders, following a high-risk police takedown.

The accused was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm while evading police on an outstanding attempted murder warrant and while subject to weapons prohibitions.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of four years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for illegal handgun possession.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a Property Standards Order issued by the City of Pickering under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The order required the defendant to remedy violations on his residential property, including removing inoperative vehicles, garbage, and debris from the yard by May 17, 2018.

When the defendant failed to comply, the municipality attended the property with contractors and removed items from the yard.

The defendant challenged the conviction on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both Charter applications and convicted the defendant.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

The accused was arrested following a high-risk police takedown while driving a vehicle.

A search of the accused yielded drugs and ammunition, and a subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed a loaded handgun alongside the accused's personal belongings.

The defence argued that police planted the personal items in the trunk to link the accused to the firearm.

The court rejected the defence's evidence, applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, and found the accused guilty of all 16 firearms, drugs, and breach of probation charges.

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 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.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and theft of hydroelectricity contrary to the Criminal Code.

He was arrested at a residential property where a substantial marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of the grow operation, arguing the search was illegal.

The Crown raised a threshold issue of standing, contending the accused could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched.

The court found the accused had not established on a balance of probabilities that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and one count of breach of probation.

The offences involved repeated touching of the vaginal areas of two young girls, ages 8 and 9, while babysitting them, in breach of a probation order prohibiting contact with children under 16.

The accused had a prior criminal record for similar sexual offences.

A psychological assessment indicated heterosexual pedophilia with moderately high reoffending risk.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a custodial sentence of 4 years was appropriate.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 4 years for the sexual interference counts and 2 years less one day for the breach of probation, along with DNA sampling, a SORIA order, and orders under sections 161 and 109 of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including MDMA, ketamine, and marihuana, as well as possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executing a search warrant found large quantities of drugs, packaging materials, scales, and currency, indicating mid‑level trafficking activity.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court held that while denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives for drug trafficking offences, the offender’s lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitation, and strong community support justified restraint.

Applying the conditional sentencing framework in force at the time of the offences, the court imposed a community‑based conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The Crown charged two defendants with assault causing bodily harm to Christopher Marcos, who was savagely beaten outside a nightclub in Toronto's Entertainment District on June 18, 2011.

The victim recalled little of the incident and could not identify his assailants.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of four Toronto Police Service officers who claimed to have witnessed the assault.

The sole issue was the identity of the perpetrators.

The defendants did not testify.

The court found that while the police witnesses may have observed an assault, their evidence fell short of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction due to significant inconsistencies in their accounts, the problematic manner in which their notes were prepared collaboratively, and the absence of any blood evidence on either defendant despite the victim being severely bloodied.