Emily Pecorella

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and assault against a young man whom he had groomed.

The Crown sought 15 to 18 months' incarceration, while the defence sought 8 months.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 months' incarceration to be served concurrently, followed by 3 years of probation, along with a lifetime SOIRA order, a 10-year s. 161 prohibition order, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to three counts of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing theft, possession of stolen property under $5000, and public mischief.

The offences involved multiple residential break-ins, including one committed while the offender was bound by recognizance and probation conditions and where the dwelling was occupied at the time.

The court emphasized the serious violation of the sanctity of the home and the aggravating factor under s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code when a dwelling is occupied.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with mitigating factors including lack of prior record, remorse, and supportive family circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender received concurrent nine‑month custodial terms followed by probation with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and assault against a 14-year-old complainant.

The court found that the accused groomed the complainant by providing him with marihuana, cigarettes, and a place to stay, thereby establishing a position of trust.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and internally inconsistent, applying the W.(D.) test.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old passenger.

The Crown alleged that after dropping off the passenger's friend, the accused rubbed the complainant's thigh, undid her belt, and placed his hand inside her shorts without consent.

The accused claimed there was a consensual arrangement whereby the complainant agreed to expose her breasts in exchange for a free cab ride, and that he therefore had consent to touch her.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as fabricated and inconsistent, finding that the complainant's silence and fear did not constitute consent.

The judge convicted the accused, finding no air of reality to the defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The four accused were charged with aggravated assault following an altercation with another inmate at a correctional centre.

The incident began as a consensual fight between one accused and the victim, but moved behind a partition out of view of surveillance cameras, where the victim sustained severe, life-threatening head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance video and the testimony of another inmate, but did not call the victim or other eyewitnesses.

The court found the inmate witness unreliable and the video insufficient to identify two of the accused.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove who inflicted the injuries or that there was a common intention to assault the victim.

All four accused were found not guilty.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on October 23, 2010.

The trial was initially scheduled for August 12, 2011, but was not reached due to an overbooked court list.

The matter was then adjourned to November 30, 2011.

The court found that the total institutional delay of approximately 11 months, just outside the 8-10 month guideline established in R. v. Morin, combined with actual prejudice to the accused (including doubled legal fees and emotional stress from two trial dates), constituted a violation of the accused's section 11(b) rights.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of OxyContin tablets contrary to section 344(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the accused possessed a holdup note demanding 80 mg OxyContin tablets, was observed loitering in the pharmacy area of a Shoppers Drug Mart, and allegedly displayed a knife.

The trial judge found that the accused did not possess a knife, rejected the theory that he was associated with another individual in the store, and determined that while the accused may have once contemplated robbing a drug store, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to rob this particular store on this particular date.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown had not proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.