Dr. Jonathon Gray

Sentencing decision arising from convictions for sexual touching, sexual assault, and invitation to sexual touching committed by a parent against a child.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, treated the parental breach of trust, the complainant's young age, the use of alcohol, and the invasive nature of the abuse as major aggravating factors, and found little mitigating value in the offender's personal circumstances or asserted low actuarial risk.

Applying appellate sentencing guidance for sexual abuse of children by adults in positions of trust, the court fixed an appropriate range and imposed a penitentiary sentence.

One conviction was stayed because it arose from the same facts, and multiple ancillary protective orders were made.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder for the killing of a police officer.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding expert psychiatric evidence and that the Crown engaged in illegal jury vetting by seeking police officers' opinions on potential jurors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions correctly explained how to weigh expert opinions based on hearsay without shifting the burden of proof.

The Court also held that the jury vetting process did not give the Crown an unfair advantage or create an appearance of bias, as the police opinions were not drawn from databases and the Crown had no obligation to disclose them.