D. Reeve

D.W. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation involving the complainant G.J., who was 13-15 years old at the time of the offence (1988-1990).

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the abuse of a position of trust and authority, the grooming and manipulation of a vulnerable child, the repetitive nature of the abuse over two years, and the profound, long-lasting impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included the offender's guilty plea, lack of a prior criminal record, low risk of reoffending, and strong family support.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child abuse offences.

The court sentenced D.W. to three years and six months in jail, along with a DNA order and a 10-year SOIRA order.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after striking her nine-year-old son with a broomstick.

At sentencing, the Crown and defence jointly proposed an absolute discharge and a 12-month peace bond.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge erred by applying a 'fitness' test rather than the stringent 'public interest' test required by Anthony-Cook.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to an absolute discharge and a peace bond, as the joint submission was not contrary to the public interest.

Elias Gibb was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

The Crown sought a 15-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 12-14 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the senseless nature of the killing, the number of shots, the offender's criminal record, prior display of the gun, rejection of provocation defence, and increased gun violence in the region.

Mitigating factors included remorse, difficult childhood, family support, youth, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court also considered the jury's recommendation (majority 10 years) and the impact of Covid-19 on incarceration conditions, but affirmed proportionality.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 13-year period of parole ineligibility, rejecting the jury's majority recommendation due to the aggravating factors.

The defendant was charged with seven serious offences involving child exploitation, including luring for sexual purposes, luring to create child pornography, extortion, and possession and access of child pornography.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds at a judicial interim release hearing.

The court found that the Crown had not met its onus for detention on either ground.

The defendant was released on conditions including house arrest with three named sureties, strict internet restrictions, and no unsupervised contact with minors.

The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as one relevant factor but emphasized that the release was not premised solely on pandemic concerns.

The defendant pleaded guilty to child luring and possession of child pornography.

He communicated with an 11-year-old girl over online gaming platforms, progressively escalating to sexually explicit messages and images over a nine-day period.

He also possessed child pornography on his computer.

The defendant has significant cognitive and developmental delays, a history of sexually inappropriate behaviour since age 8, and was on waitlists for treatment programs.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentences; the defence challenged the mandatory minimum for child luring as a violation of section 12 of the Charter.

The court found the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate for a reasonable hypothetical offender with developmental delays and struck it down.

However, the court imposed a custodial sentence despite the defendant's cognitive challenges, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the high risk of reoffending and the defendant's demonstrated grooming behaviour.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference with a person under 16 years old.

The offender, an 85-year-old violin teacher, kissed the 10-year-old complainant on the lips multiple times over approximately two years during private music lessons.

The court dismissed a Charter s. 11(b) application regarding unreasonable delay and imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court addressed the complex legal issue of mandatory minimum sentences, finding that the one-year mandatory minimum had been struck down and that s. 11(i) of the Charter precluded application of the previous 45-day minimum.

The sentencing balanced significant aggravating factors including breach of trust and the sexual nature of the conduct against substantial mitigating factors including the offender's advanced age, poor health, cognitive decline, lack of criminal record, and contributions to the musical community.

The accused was charged with refusal to provide an adequate sample into an approved screening device (ASD) following a RIDE stop.

The Crown alleged the accused failed to provide a sufficient breath sample during multiple attempts at the roadside.

The court found the accused not guilty, determining that the Crown failed to establish a valid demand based on reasonable suspicion and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally refused to provide a sample.

The officer's evidence was undermined by inconsistencies regarding the smell of alcohol, poor documentation of the testing procedures, failure to activate video recording, and subsequent unauthorized breath demand.