D. Wilcox

The 71-year-old offender was convicted of sexual exploitation for performing oral sex on a 15-year-old male who lived with him in 1988.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was legally available under s. 11(i) of the Charter, as there was no mandatory minimum at the time of the offence.

Considering the offender's advanced age, deteriorating health due to Parkinson's disease, genuine remorse, and low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that a conditional sentence would meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance and a subsequent search warrant led to the seizure of approximately 41 pounds of marijuana, cash, a debt list, and an imitation pistol from the offender’s residence.

The court considered the commercial nature of the operation and the significant quantity of drugs as aggravating factors, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, family responsibilities, stable employment, and evidence of rehabilitation following the birth of his child.

Balancing these factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence shorter than that sought by the Crown.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had found the Crown failed to prove that a proper breath demand under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code had been made, noting the absence of explicit notebook entries and the officers’ lack of independent recollection of reading the demand.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence and that a document prepared by the breath technician should have been treated as substantive proof of the demand.

The appeal court held that the argument regarding the document had not been advanced at trial and could not ground appellate intervention.

Applying the deferential standard of review for factual findings, the court concluded the evidence was capable of supporting the trial judge’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation imposed for assault causing bodily harm under s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the sentence was unduly harsh because the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including rehabilitative efforts and sobriety, and gave excessive weight to the appellant’s youth record.

The court held that the sentencing judge carefully considered both mitigating and aggravating factors, including the deliberate nature of the assault, the serious injuries caused, and the appellant’s lengthy youth criminal record involving violent offences.

The court emphasized that appellate intervention is warranted only where a sentence is clearly unreasonable and noted that a sentence exceeding the Crown’s suggested range is not an error in principle.

The appellant failed to demonstrate that the sentence fell outside the appropriate range and the appeal was dismissed.