Ebony Rose Hayde Evans

This sentencing decision addresses multiple armed robbery offences and possession of a loaded restricted firearm by Travis Hinds, a young first-time offender.

The court considered the aggravating factors including the use and possession of firearms in multiple planned robberies, the serious injury caused to a victim by a firearm discharge, and the public safety risk posed by such crimes.

Mitigating factors such as Hinds' youth, guilty pleas, lack of prior record, and family support were also weighed.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, concurrent sentences for multiple counts, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture of seized firearm and ammunition, and a no-contact order with victims.

The decision addresses the sentencing of Johnny Sawatis, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The court considered whether it was necessary to view a representative sample of the images as part of the sentencing process, ultimately ruling that it was required due to the absence of other evidence about the nature and severity of the collection.

The court reviewed the relevant sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the impact of Sawatis' Indigenous background.

A sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment was imposed, along with several ancillary orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three breaches of a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), which stemmed from his contact with his intimate partner, the complainant, and violation of geographic and residency conditions.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with multiple intimate partner violence convictions and prior breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, which spared the complainant from testifying, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts from his parole officer.

The court emphasized denunciation, specific deterrence, and public protection, while also balancing rehabilitation.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and collateral consequences of COVID-19.

The court also issued a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a communication prohibition with the complainant.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a child in his care.

The accused sought production of notes made by the child's foster mother (H.N.) a few days after the alleged assault.

H.N. had prepared these notes at the request of her family lawyer to obtain legal advice regarding custody proceedings.

The notes were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court rejected the accused's argument that H.N. waived privilege by seeking to refresh her memory from the notes prior to trial.

The court applied a flexible, principled approach to determine whether implied waiver occurred, balancing the probative value of the document against the prejudicial effect of breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The application for production was dismissed.

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 accused was charged with assault and sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and proceeded to trial on the sexual assault charge.

The complainant testified that the accused persistently coerced her into sexual intercourse despite her repeated refusals.

The court found that the complainant was a credible witness and that her evidence established that she never consented to the sexual act.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant's post-intercourse conduct was inconsistent with non-consent, finding that her disappointment and anger were consistent with having been forced into unwanted sexual activity.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The Town of Oakville appealed the dismissal of charges against a mobile sign company for violating the town's sign by-law.

The trial judge found section 39(3) of the by-law, which restricted third-party advertising signs to E1 and E2 industrial zones, violated freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not justified under section 1.

The appellate court reversed, finding the trial judge erred in failing to accord appropriate deference to municipal policy decisions, mischaracterizing the nature of commercial expression, and failing to properly apply the minimal impairment test under the Oakes framework.

The court upheld the by-law as rationally connected to legitimate municipal objectives and proportionate to those objectives.