Elena Davies

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his conditional discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's delusional disorder remains only in partial remission and that he lacks insight into his need for long-acting injectable medication.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, specifically a risk of psychological harm to the victim, and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused had been living in the community but was readmitted to the hospital after triggering a fire alarm while smoking cocaine, leading to his impending eviction.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, citing the gravity of the index offences, a concurrent second-degree murder conviction, and a history of severe substance abuse triggering psychotic episodes.

The Board ordered a detention order with limited privileges for medical, dental, legal, and compassionate purposes, along with conditions including a weapons prohibition and abstention from substances.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for offences including kidnapping and dangerous driving, was subject to an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital had readmitted the accused following a hypomanic episode, significantly restricting his liberty.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and maintained his detention order with modified travel privileges.

The Board also concluded that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive course of action available to manage his increased risk.

The accused, Abel Hailu, faced multiple Criminal Code charges including sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, forcible confinement, criminal harassment (two counts), intimidation, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and kidnapping, arising from an incident on October 14, 2022.

The central issue was consent, with the complainant alleging non-consensual sexual activity and forced movement under threat of a knife, and the accused claiming all interactions were consensual.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by other evidence, including the accused's internet search history and post-incident communications, which indicated planning and an intent to control.

The accused's explanations were rejected as not credible.

The court convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused, Abel Hailu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through alleged breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights, specifically concerning police takeover of the complainant's phone for text messaging, his arrest, strip search, and search of his residence and electronic devices.

The court found that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages with the complainant, who was a stranger and alleged victim of a sexual assault and kidnapping.

Therefore, no s. 8 breach occurred regarding the text messages, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.

The court also found no s. 8 breaches regarding the strip search or the search of his residence and electronic devices, as these were conducted reasonably and based on valid warrants.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The 73-year-old accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old victim who was sleeping at his home after consuming alcohol.

The Crown sought a sentence of two to three years' incarceration, while the accused sought a conditional sentence, relying on his Indigenous heritage and Gladue factors.

The court found insufficient evidence of Gladue factors to warrant an alternative sanction and emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against adolescents, applying the principles from Friesen.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 12 months' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to Criminal Negligence Causing Death after driving his pickup truck while impaired, speeding at 153 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, and passing illegally on a two-lane highway.

His vehicle struck another vehicle head-on, killing the driver.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence and a 38-month driving prohibition.

The court applied sentencing principles emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation while considering mitigating factors including the accused's remorse, guilty plea, family support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

Crown counsel, on behalf of Complainant C.G., applied for an order lifting a mandatory publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, which had been imposed in incest proceedings.

C.G. wished to publicize her story to encourage other victims and aid her healing.

The other complainant, H.B., did not consent to lifting the ban, and the Accused, T.S.H., opposed it due to concerns about youth criminal justice information.

The court acknowledged its jurisdiction to revoke the ban given C.G.'s consent, but ultimately refused the application, prioritizing H.B.'s privacy interests and the criminal justice system's assurance of victim identity protection.

The court suggested alternative ways for C.G. to tell her story without revealing her identity.

Following convictions for historical incest involving non-consensual sexual intercourse with two younger sisters, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence remained the primary sentencing objectives despite the passage of time, while treating the offender's age, medical frailty, lack of recent offending, and limited record as mitigating factors.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inadequate given the abuse of trust, the victims' vulnerability, the repeated conduct, and the profound long-term harm described in the victim impact material.

A total sentence of three years' incarceration was imposed, together with pre-sentence custody credit and ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and no-contact orders.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on three counts of historic incest involving two complainants who were his sisters.

The court admitted evidence of prior discreditable conduct from the accused's youth as relevant to context, motive, power dynamics, and the complainants' delayed disclosure, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Applying the governing principles for assessing adult testimony about childhood events, the court found both complainants credible and their evidence sufficiently reliable on the essential elements of penetration, knowledge of blood relationship, and identity.

The court held that no count-to-count similar fact analysis was necessary because the convictions could be entered on the direct evidence alone.

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a residential property, taking a motor vehicle without consent, and breach of recognizance.

The defendant, a 20-year-old with no criminal record, unlawfully entered a family home while the owners were on vacation, hosted parties over three days resulting in over $130,000 in property damage and theft, and subsequently breached his release conditions by consuming alcohol.

The Crown sought six months jail followed by probation, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence for the break and enter and a six-month conditional sentence for the other offences.

The court imposed six months jail followed by two years probation for the break and enter, with concurrent one-month sentences for the other offences, along with restitution, counselling conditions, and a firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of section 10(a), determined the ASD demand was made forthwith despite a six-minute delay, found the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, but found a violation of section 9 regarding arbitrary detention due to overholding without consideration of alternatives to detention.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings and admitted the Intoxilyzer readings, finding the accused guilty of the charge.

The offender was found guilty of multiple offences including offering a bribe to an immigration officer, possession of identity information, forgery, and misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, relating to 170 fraudulent refugee sponsorship applications.

The court rejected the application of the Kienapple principle to stay the forgery charges.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the sophisticated, profit-driven nature of the scheme and the harm to the integrity of the immigration system, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a global penitentiary sentence of 45 months.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of a 12-month driving prohibition pending the appeal of her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The court previously found that the prohibition caused hardship.

However, after reviewing the trial record, the court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge's findings regarding impairment were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

The accused was prosecuted for multiple offences arising from a scheme involving the private “Group of Five” refugee sponsorship program.

The Crown alleged that the accused submitted large numbers of sponsorship applications supported by forged bank letters, fabricated pay stubs, and identity documents belonging to purported sponsors.

Evidence showed the accused possessed extensive copies of personal identification, draft financial letters, and materials used to fabricate documentation.

The court found the accused lacked credibility and concluded that the documentary and circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he forged documents, used forged documents, possessed identity information for fraudulent purposes, and made misrepresentations under immigration legislation.

The court also found the accused offered a bribe to an immigration officer to expedite applications.

However, the court acquitted the accused on the charge of organizing illegal entry under IRPA because the refugees entered Canada with valid travel documents.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).

The accused applied for a declaration that s. 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which criminalizes organizing the entry of undocumented persons into Canada, was unconstitutionally overbroad contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The applicant argued the provision captured humanitarian actors and family members assisting refugees, thereby exceeding Parliament’s intent.

The court held the legislative objective of the provision is border control and immigration system integrity, and that Parliament intentionally enacted a broad offence without exemptions.

Relying heavily on appellate authority, the court found the provision’s scope aligned with its objective and therefore not overbroad.

The constitutional challenge was dismissed.