Dr. Rose

Sentencing for a school teacher who pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual exploitation arising from abuse of a student in a position of trust.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding numerous aggravating factors including grooming, secrecy, planning, persistence after protests, and significant harm to the complainant and community confidence in schools.

The offender's mental health evidence did not mitigate sentence because no causal link was established between any illness and the offences, and the defence expert's recidivism opinion was given limited weight due to inaccurate self-reporting.

A global sentence of three years' imprisonment was imposed together with mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from Bipolar 1 Disorder and cognitive impairment, was previously subject to a Detention Order at Providence Care Hospital.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused lacks insight into his condition and requires strict supervision to maintain medication adherence and alcohol abstinence.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the accused's unfitness to stand trial on charges of mischief and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, had received substantial antipsychotic treatment and participated in a pragmatic court education program utilizing visual aids and role-play.

Applying the test from Bharwani, the Board accepted the uncontested psychiatric and psychological evidence that the accused now possessed a reality-based understanding of the court process, the possible consequences of the proceedings, and the ability to communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court, with his current detention order remaining in effect in the interim.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing the victim 30 times.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge and Crown misstated forensic evidence, that the jury instructions on self-defence, provocation, and mens rea were inadequate, and that the trial judge erred in finding him the aggressor for sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the jury instructions, read as a whole, properly equipped the jury and that any misstatements of evidence did not vitiate the verdict.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's finding that the appellant was the aggressor was supported by the physical evidence and post-offence conduct.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing a highly intoxicated neighbour who mistakenly arrived at his door late at night.

The offender, who had a history of being harassed by the victim's associates, reasonably but mistakenly believed his home was under attack, though his use of a lethal sword was found disproportionate.

The court assessed his moral culpability at the low end of the scale, sentencing him to 2 years' imprisonment, reduced to 7 months after crediting pre-trial custody and house arrest, followed by 2 years of probation.

The offender, a taxi driver, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after striking and killing a skateboarder with his vehicle.

The sentencing judge found as a fact that the offender intentionally struck the victim in a fit of road rage, using his vehicle as a weapon, though without the intent to kill.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 47.5 months' imprisonment (4 years less pre-trial custody credit), along with a 6-year driving prohibition and a weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing at a social event.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second degree murder with no parole eligibility for 13 years, and a concurrent 8-year sentence for attempted murder.

The court considered the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and positive employment history.

The Crown sought to admit a confession made by the accused to undercover police officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence, arguing that the surreptitious recording authorizations were invalid, that his right to silence under s. 7 of the Charter was violated, and that the confession should be excluded under common law principles of abuse of process and prejudicial effect.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused was not in the functional control of the state, the police conduct was not abusive, the confession was highly reliable, and the wiretap authorizations were validly issued.

The young person, charged with second degree murder, brought pre-trial applications seeking a stay of proceedings and the exclusion of certain evidence.

The moving party argued his right to silence was violated when he was compelled to testify at the preliminary inquiry of his adult co-accused.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no breach of the Crown's undertaking or the right to silence.

The court ruled photographs of the moving party's hands admissible, finding their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded late-disclosed DNA evidence regarding blood on the moving party's sweatshirt, finding its admission would prejudice the defence.

A subsequent request by the Crown to admit the DNA evidence in reply was denied, with the court instead providing a strong caution to the jury.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder.

At trial, he claimed to have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and amnesia, rendering him unable to remember the events.

The defence introduced statements the appellant made during a court-ordered psychiatric assessment, which the Crown then cross-examined him on.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to caution the jury against using disbelief of his amnesia as circumstantial evidence of guilt, by allowing cross-examination on protected statements under s. 672.21 of the Criminal Code, and by failing to instruct the jury not to rely on third-party opinions of his truthfulness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and holding that the appellant waived the protection of s. 672.21 by introducing the statements himself.