Dr. Julian Gojer

Following guilty pleas to sexual interference, child luring, and making child pornography involving a 15‑year‑old complainant, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention.

Extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence established that the offender suffered from antisocial personality disorder with psychopathic traits, severe substance dependence, and a high actuarial risk of violent and sexual recidivism.

The court found the offence of sexual interference constituted a serious personal injury offence and that the offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing failure to restrain conduct and a likelihood of causing injury or severe psychological harm in the future.

Although one statutory pathway for dangerous offender status based on persistent aggressive behaviour was not proven, the criteria under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code were satisfied.

The court concluded that neither a determinate sentence nor a long‑term supervision order would adequately protect the public and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in heroin committed between October 2012 and January 2013.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two and a half years, while the defence sought a non-custodial disposition.

The court found the offender to be a low-level, addiction-driven trafficker who had made extraordinary rehabilitative efforts post-arrest, including successful completion of addiction treatment, mental health counselling, and community service.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the first offence, followed by two years of probation, with suspended sentences for the remaining three offences and concurrent probation orders.

The decision emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation for addict traffickers and the flexibility required in sentencing to achieve just results in exceptional circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after severely beating his 66-year-old roommate, causing a near-fatal traumatic brain injury.

The attack was unprovoked and occurred while the accused was intoxicated.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, mental health issues, and alcohol addiction as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim and the accused's prior criminal record.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and imposed a sentence of 54 months, less 30 months credit, resulting in 2 years less a day to be served, followed by 3 years of probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought approximately nine months with credit for time spent under house arrest.

The court considered the offender's youthful age, lack of prior record, history of childhood sexual abuse, and the significant mitigating effect of his strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent custody, which accounted for the mandatory minimum and pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day plus three years probation.

The defence sought approximately nine months with credit for nearly two years of house arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 days intermittent imprisonment plus three years probation with conditions including counselling, community service, and compliance with sex offender registration requirements.

The court emphasized the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant mitigating factors including childhood sexual abuse and mental health issues, and low risk of reoffending, while balancing denunciation and general deterrence principles applicable to child pornography offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven charges involving child pornography: three counts of possession, three counts of making, and one count of distributing child pornography.

The offences involved two separate victims—eight underage members of a hockey team whose nude images were recorded without consent in a locker room, and a youth aged 15-17 with whom the accused engaged in an exploitative online relationship involving the exchange of explicit images and videos.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment, with credit for 10 months pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence followed by three years probation.

The court balanced the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's first-offender status, genuine remorse, insight into his conduct, willingness to undergo treatment, and low risk to reoffend.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following a conviction for assault with a weapon.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of the offender’s criminal history, including 89 prior convictions and numerous violent offences demonstrating a persistent pattern of aggressive and repetitive violent behaviour.

Psychological assessments placed the offender in high‑risk categories for violent recidivism but indicated potential manageability through intensive supervision and treatment in the community.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under ss. 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code were met.

However, satisfied that long‑term supervision could adequately protect the public, the court imposed a two‑year sentence (time served) together with a ten‑year long‑term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The offender, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of second degree murder following a brutal attack on the victim.

The mandatory sentence was life imprisonment, and the sole issue was the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 15 years, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court extensively reviewed the offender's profound intergenerational trauma, including the impact of residential schools on his parents, severe childhood abuse, neglect, and systemic racism, applying the Gladue and Ipeelee principles.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's reduced moral culpability due to these systemic factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 10 years.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and care or control of a motor vehicle while over the legal limit following a collision.

The central issue at trial was whether the appellant had been the driver or merely a passenger, with the defence asserting that another individual had been driving and raising non-insane automatism based on a head injury.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons were inadequate because they failed to analyze key potentially exculpatory evidence, including seatbelt markings on the appellant’s shirt consistent with the passenger position, and failed to sufficiently address discrepancies in eyewitness testimony.

The appellate court found that the deficiencies prevented meaningful appellate review of whether the evidence had been properly considered.

The convictions and conditional stay were therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.

Two accused were jointly tried for the homicide of a young teenager.

The principal accused admitted causing the death but contested whether the killing constituted first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter.

The co‑accused was alleged to have participated in a plan to lure the victim to the residence and assist in the killing.

The trial involved numerous evidentiary rulings, including admissibility of a fictional story written by the co‑accused as potential motive evidence, disclosure and partial admission of the victim’s diary, admission of edited autopsy photographs, and applications concerning prior consistent statements under the Edgar doctrine.

The jury ultimately convicted the principal accused of first degree murder and acquitted the co‑accused.

The decision records extensive reasons on pre‑trial and mid‑trial evidentiary and procedural rulings made throughout the proceeding.

The accused pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery and six counts of using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.

The robberies occurred between December 2011 and January 2012 at various financial institutions in Toronto.

The accused displayed an imitation firearm during each robbery and made demands for money, obtaining approximately $34,000 in total with no recovery.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years less pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in an additional five years, eight months and 19 days of imprisonment.

The sentence balanced principles of denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, taking into account the accused's remorse, medical evidence of improvement, and potential for rehabilitation.

The Member, a teacher, was convicted of possessing, making available, and accessing child pornography.

He was sentenced to 53 months in jail and prohibited from being in the presence of children under 16 for 20 years.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct based on his criminal convictions.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and directed publication of the decision with his name, emphasizing the need to protect children and maintain public confidence in the profession.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon after attacking his adoptive parents.

Following psychiatric assessments, the trial judge found the appellant not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, likely schizophrenia.

The appellant appealed the NCR verdict, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategy was professional and caused no prejudice, and that the NCR verdict was well-supported by the evidence of the appellant's mental decline, bizarre behaviour, and expert testimony.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the defence sought to call a former co-accused as a witness and cross-examine him.

The co-accused had previously pled guilty to manslaughter, and the Crown had decided not to call him as a witness.

The defence argued that cross-examination was necessary to challenge the co-accused's earlier statements to police, which implicated the accused as the primary attacker.

The court granted the application, finding that restricting the defence to standard rules for challenging one's own witness would undermine the accused's right to make full answer and defence, particularly given the leading nature of the police interview with the co-accused.

Mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a homicide prosecution addressing the admissibility of disposition evidence relating to the deceased.

The defence sought to adduce evidence of a prior violent altercation between the deceased and police officers to support the inference that the deceased reacted aggressively when verbally confronted, thereby raising a reasonable doubt regarding intent for murder and supporting a potential provocation argument.

Applying the principles from Scopelliti and related jurisprudence, the court considered relevance and weighed probative value against prejudicial effect.

The court held the prior incident was sufficiently probative of the deceased’s tendency to react violently in confrontational situations and that any risk of prejudice could be managed through jury instructions.

The defence was therefore permitted to call the evidence.

During a jury trial for homicide, the Crown brought a mid‑trial application seeking to introduce similar fact evidence of the accused’s alleged violent conduct toward individuals he believed to be paedophiles, including an assault on another inmate while in custody after the charged offence.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to motive, animus, intention, and to cross‑examine a defence psychiatric expert regarding the accused’s mental state.

Applying the framework from R. v. Handy, the court held that although the evidence had some relevance to hostility toward paedophiles, its probative value was significantly reduced because similar animus was already before the jury and the proposed incident occurred two years after the alleged homicide.

The court found the moral and reasoning prejudice from introducing the detention‑centre assault—particularly a surveillance video—far outweighed its probative value and risked diverting the jury from the issues in the trial.

The Crown was therefore prohibited from adducing evidence about that assault but was permitted limited cross‑examination about other admitted past altercations and hostility toward child molesters.

The accused applied for a declaration that he was unfit to stand trial on three counts of dangerous driving causing death following a high-speed motor vehicle accident that resulted in the deaths of three passengers and caused him a traumatic brain injury.

The defence relied on expert evidence asserting that the accused suffered from frontal lobe dementia and severe cognitive impairment rendering him unable to participate meaningfully in the trial process.

Crown experts concluded that the accused retained sufficient cognitive capacity and that test results suggested malingering.

Applying the “limited cognitive capacity” test from R. v. Taylor, as affirmed in R. v. Whittle and R. v. Morrissey, the court held that the defence failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused was unfit.

The presumption of fitness therefore remained and the application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless use of a firearm and causing a disturbance by being drunk in a public place.

The offences occurred when the defendant, intoxicated after drinking with co-workers, returned to his workplace with a loaded shotgun and fired one shot into the ceiling in the presence of witnesses.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days on an intermittent basis, followed by 15 months of probation with conditions including alcohol counselling, community service, and a weapons prohibition.

The court balanced mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, good work history, remorse) against aggravating factors (dangerous conduct, presence of others, combination of guns and alcohol) and determined that deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence despite the defendant's low risk to reoffend.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6-9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by 3 years probation with ancillary orders.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence against significant mitigating factors including the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, commitment to counselling, family support, and low risk to re-offend as assessed by a forensic psychiatrist.

The offender pleaded guilty to four child pornography-related offences and two breaches of probation conditions.

He had previously been convicted of possession of child pornography in 2010 and sentenced to 4.5 months custody plus three years probation with strict conditions prohibiting computer use without monitoring software.

Within weeks of release, he resumed accessing and distributing child pornography through the internet, using encryption software and internet cafes to evade detection.

Upon arrest, police seized approximately 61,000 child pornography images and hundreds of videos, predominantly depicting prepubescent boys.

The court imposed a 36-month effective sentence (17 months prospective custody following 19 months pre-trial detention credit) followed by three years probation with strict conditions including mandatory treatment, computer restrictions, and sex offender registration for life.