Forest Poff-Smith

Christa Hier pleaded guilty to possession of 118 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice imposed a sentence balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, resulting in a total sentence of six and a half years: 12 months credited as served with 18 months credit, plus five years custody.

The decision highlights the significant community impact of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke, the offender’s history of addiction and trauma, and the importance of individualized sentencing that considers both public safety and rehabilitative potential.

This decision involves the trial of C.L. charged with mischief, uttering threats, and aggravated assault against V.L. The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats but denied the other charges.

The case centered on conflicting accounts regarding whether C.L. caused injuries to V.L. by kicking her down stairs and damaging her property.

The Court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, applying the W.(D.) test and principles from recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on reasonable doubt and witness reliability.

The judge found C.L.'s explanations inconsistent and untruthful, particularly regarding the cause of V.L.'s injuries and the damage to the bedroom wall.

The Court accepted V.L.'s testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that C.L. committed mischief and aggravated assault by causing V.L. to fall down the stairs, resulting in a spinal fracture.

This decision addresses sentencing for a sexual offence involving under-the-clothes digital touching of an 11-year-old girl by her stepfather.

The accused was found guilty after rejecting his defence of lack of intention and NCR-MD.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, including 15 months of house arrest, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing analysis considered the accused's Indigenous background, mental and physical health issues, low risk of reoffence, and the serious victim impact.

The court carefully weighed the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the abuse of trust, and the availability of conditional sentences post-R. v. Friesen and related jurisprudence.

The accused, R.O., was sentenced for sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching of his 12-year-old stepdaughter, with the sexual assault conviction stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse, as per R. v. Friesen.

Despite the accused being a first-time offender with a low risk of reoffending and strong community support, the court found that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or the offender's moral blameworthiness due to the breach of trust and protracted nature of the abuse.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including DNA sample, Sex Offender Information Registration, weapon prohibition, and non-contact orders.

A victim fine surcharge was waived due to undue hardship.

This judgment concerns a murder trial where the accused, Brandon Lamoureux, was charged with the fatal stabbing of Gilbert Rumleskie.

The central issue was the identification of the stabber, with conflicting and unreliable witness testimonies from Jordan Plumb and Ashley Dombroskie, and circumstantial evidence including grainy surveillance video and DNA analysis.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of all witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies and admitted lies from the Crown's key witnesses.

Despite evidence of animus and prior threats by the accused towards the victim, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused or Jordan Plumb, whose knife was the murder weapon and bore his DNA, inflicted the fatal wound.

The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be rationally inconsistent with any other conclusion than guilt, and that reasonable inferences consistent with innocence can arise from a lack of evidence.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault against his daughter (AH), and breach of a probation order.

The case primarily relied on the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's videotaped statement and her viva voce testimony, which was challenged by the defence as inconsistent and unreliable due to the passage of time and potential influence.

The accused denied the allegations, offering alternative explanations related to domestic violence, exposure to pornography, and animus from the complainant.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles for credibility assessment, rejected the accused's explanations as self-serving speculation, and found the complainant's evidence compelling for the sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault (penis between legs, fellatio, and ejaculation) charges.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the cunnilingus and vaginal touching allegations.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault (as proven), and breach of probation.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a child witness's videotaped statement under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the witness's failure to remember giving the statement is fatal to its admission.

The court found that it is not, interpreting "adopts" in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. F. (C.C.).

The decision emphasizes that the child's attestation of truthfulness at the time the statement was made, coupled with other reliability factors, is sufficient for adoption, even without a present memory of the events or the act of making the statement.

The legislative purpose of preserving early accounts from vulnerable witnesses is highlighted.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit evidence of discreditable conduct against the respondent, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The court admitted evidence of specific threats involving a knife made by the respondent to the deceased shortly before the killing, and a prior incident where the respondent brandished a knife and stabbed a motel room wall in the deceased's presence.

However, the court declined to admit evidence of the respondent's prior convictions for weapon possession, robbery (involving knife brandishing), and assault with a weapon, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, particularly on the central issue of who possessed the murder weapon.

The appellant, Hany Komy, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge did misapprehend some evidence concerning the appellant's testimony about a complainant's hiring and training, this misapprehension was not material to the overall credibility assessment.

The trial judge had numerous other valid reasons for her negative credibility finding, including the appellant's combative demeanor, evasiveness, self-serving answers, and failure to comply with the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a complainant under 14 years of age.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, addressing inconsistencies in her testimony and the impact of late disclosure and non-avoidant behavior.

The court found that the complainant was unable to legally consent to sexual activity and that the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, negating the defense of mistaken belief in age.

The accused was found guilty of both sexual interference and sexual assault.

The accused applied for a bail review after initially being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the accused's completion of a conditional sentence, his testimony regarding his time in custody, and a significantly strengthened release plan involving three sureties and GPS monitoring.

Conducting a hearing de novo, the court concluded that the strict release plan mitigated the substantial likelihood of reoffending.

Furthermore, considering the accused's membership in a vulnerable population under s. 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code, detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was ordered released on strict conditions.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a known third-party suspect.

The Crown opposed, arguing there was no air of reality to the proposed evidence.

The court applied the sufficient connection test and found that, taking the proposed evidence at its highest, there was an air of reality linking the third party to the shooting.

The application was granted, allowing the defence to cross-examine Crown witnesses and lead evidence regarding the alternative suspect.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a statement provided by the accused, Donald Musselman, to police, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness and alleged breaches of Charter rights.

The court found that the interviewing officer undermined the accused's right to silence by suggesting his credibility would be diminished if he did not speak to police and later testified at trial.

Consequently, the statement was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was excluded from evidence.