Erica M. Quayle

The applicant was convicted at trial of one count of luring a person under 16 years by telecommunications, three counts of sexual assault, and three counts of sexual interference involving multiple child complainants.

He received a global sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal on three grounds: misapplication of the burden and standard of proof under R. v. W.(D.), insufficient reasons for conviction, and an unreasonable verdict on the child luring charge.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous but dismissed the bail application on public interest grounds, finding that the seriousness of the offences and the weakness of the grounds of appeal outweighed the reviewability interest despite minimal public safety concerns.

A bail hearing concerning charges of possession of proceeds from crime, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking in cocaine.

The Crown initially recommended release on a recognizance with one surety, but withdrew its consent when the justice raised concerns about the ladder principle and Charter implications.

The matter proceeded as a contested bail hearing.

The justice released the accused on a recognizance without sureties with conditions, including a $2,500 bond, residence requirements, curfew, no-contact orders, and substance abuse counselling.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from an incident on February 5, 2012.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of section 8 rights, contending that the officer lacked a warrant to enter the accused's property and that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples.

The court rejected both Charter arguments, finding that the officer was lawfully present under the common law implied invitation to knock and that the officer had sufficient grounds for arrest based on observations of impairment.

The court admitted the breath sample evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown applied for a serious violent offence (SVO) designation under section 42(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied a two-phase test: first, determining whether the offence caused serious bodily harm and whether the young person caused that harm; second, exercising discretion to determine whether an SVO designation was necessary to hold the offender accountable.

While the court found the threshold test satisfied, it declined to make the SVO designation, finding that such designation was not necessary to achieve the purposes of youth sentencing in all the circumstances.