Eginhart Ehlers

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness (the former intimate partner of the accused) to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom and in the company of a support person in a trial for breach of a recognizance.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the witness should testify in-person behind a privacy screen.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the witness would experience psychological and physiological distress if required to testify in the presence of the accused, and that CCTV and a support person would facilitate her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess alcohol after police discovered his vehicle stuck in the snow-filled side yard of his residential property.

The Crown relied on observations of impairment indicators and breath samples showing 210 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the police entry onto private property and the sufficiency of grounds for the breath demand.

The court found no Charter violations, dismissed the impaired charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment, but convicted on the over 80 charge based on the admissible breath readings.

The Crown applied for a Dangerous Offender designation against the accused following his guilty pleas to 35 counts involving sexual offences against 14 victims ranging from infants to adults, as well as bestiality and child pornography offences.

The accused had engaged in systematic sexual predation over approximately nine years, from age 14 to 22, including plans to drug and rape children.

The defence argued for a Long Term Offender designation instead, emphasizing the accused's potential for treatment and rehabilitation.

The court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused met the statutory criteria for Dangerous Offender designation under section 753(1) of the Criminal Code, considering the pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour, the complete inability to control sexual impulses, and the escalating nature of the offences.

The court designated the accused as a Dangerous Offender.

A dangerous offender application hearing where the Crown sought to prove contested facts regarding sexual offences against multiple adolescent girls and children.

The accused had pleaded guilty to 34 charges involving numerous sexual offences.

The Crown sought to establish additional discreditable conduct that predated the existing charges, which had originally been charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court heard evidence from four complainant witnesses and assessed credibility and reliability of their testimony against the beyond reasonable doubt standard applicable to contested facts in dangerous offender proceedings.

The accused, Erik Johnson, was sentenced for a serious offence that caused life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered the accused's long criminal record, including previous acts of violence, as an aggravating factor, noting issues with self-control and anger.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expression of remorse, and efforts to address a substance abuse problem.

The court imposed a high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

This decision outlines the sentencing of Erik Johnson for a serious violent offence that resulted in life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's extensive criminal record with prior violence and issues with self-control.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expressed remorse, and efforts to address substance abuse.

A high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail was imposed, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

The accused, a lawful gun owner and security company operator, was charged with two counts: careless transportation of a firearm on June 21, 2012 (Count 2) and careless storage of a firearm on June 27, 2012 (Count 3).

On Count 2, police observed a shotgun mounted visibly in the accused's unattended vehicle for over an hour, contrary to transportation regulations.

On Count 3, police found a shotgun stored in an unlocked bedroom with ammunition readily accessible in a side saddle attached to the gun and additional ammunition on a dresser.

The trial court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defence arguments regarding admissibility of photographs, reliability of officer testimony, proof that the item was a firearm, and proof that the vehicle was unattended.

The court also rejected the defence submission that a trigger lock alone satisfied storage requirements when ammunition remained readily accessible.