François Dulude

The accused, a former Canadian Senator, was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of his executive assistant between September 2013 and March 2014.

The complainant alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching at the office and during work trips, as well as controlling and threatening conduct that caused her to fear for her psychological safety.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainant, the accused, his wife, and corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with witness testimony and inconsistencies regarding key events.

The accused's evidence was found to be straightforward and credible.

The court applied the W.D. framework and found that the evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding all counts.

The accused was on trial for sexual assault and sexual contact against A.B., and sexual assault against C.D. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the charges involving A.B., the evidence was deemed insufficient as the term "sexual relation" was ambiguous and lacked specific details, preventing the court from making an independent assessment of the facts.

For the charge involving C.D., despite her testimony, her severe intoxication at the time of the alleged incident and potential involuntary collusion with A.B. (who admitted not knowing exactly what happened) raised a reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of her account.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with 27 counts of fraud over $5,000 and obtaining money by false pretences.

He solicited $30,000 loans from multiple lenders for a real estate development, falsely promising them a security interest in specific townhouse units.

The accused misappropriated the funds to pay himself a salary and cover personal expenses, and the development failed, resulting in the loss of the lenders' investments.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he knowingly made false representations and committed dishonest acts that put the lenders' economic interests at risk.

This is a sentencing decision for W.S., who was found guilty of sexually assaulting two teenage girls, Sarah (15) and Colleen (17).

The court detailed the nature of the offences, which involved grooming and exploitation of a position of trust, and the devastating long-term impact on the victims and the offender's own daughter.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly the emphasis on denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse post-R. v. Friesen.

Despite defence arguments regarding the impact of incarceration on W.S.'s farming business and his partner's health, the court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it inconsistent with the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

W.S.'s lack of remorse and denial of responsibility were noted as aggravating factors.

The court sentenced W.S. to 35 months in custody, with credit for pre-sentence detention, and imposed various ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA sample, weapons prohibition, and non-communication/proximity restrictions with the victims.

The defendant, a high school teacher, was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, possession of child pornography, and communicating with a child for sexual purposes.

The Crown alleged these offenses occurred while the complainant was a minor and a student at his school.

The court found the complainant's testimony inconsistent and unreliable regarding the timeline of events, particularly whether the alleged sexual activity occurred before her 18th birthday.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The accused, Mark Stordy, was charged with two counts of agreeing or making an arrangement to commit sexual assault with a person he believed to be under 16 years, specifically an 11-year-old and a 7-year-old, contrary to s. 172.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on telecommunications between Stordy and an FBI agent posing as a mother with two young daughters.

Stordy claimed he was conducting a private investigation to identify a parent endangering children.

The court rejected Stordy's defence, finding him not credible.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stordy had the specific intent to actually travel and meet the fictitious individuals, concluding his communications were merely fantasy roleplaying.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of mischief for damaging the complainant's property during their relationship.

The court considered the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence, the significant impact on the complainant, and the accused's lack of insight into his alcohol addiction.

The court sentenced the accused to 30 days of imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation with conditions to attend anger management and alcohol counselling, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

The accused was charged with two counts of mischief and three counts of sexual assault against his former intimate partner.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused guilty of the two counts of mischief, rejecting his claim that the property damage was accidental.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the sexual assault charges, finding that while the accused's evidence was not believed, the whole of the evidence, including inconsistencies and the complainant's willingness to lie to police about other matters, left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon, carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence, possession of a prohibited weapon, breach of four weapons prohibitions, driving while disqualified, and failing to comply with a probation order.

All charges arose from an incident in which an American visitor was pepper-sprayed in the face in Gananoque.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the perpetrator.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts except one, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The three accused, Ashton Larmond, Carlos Larmond, and Suliman Mohamed, pleaded guilty to various terrorism-related offences and other charges.

Ashton Larmond pleaded guilty to knowingly instructing persons to enhance terrorist activity, Carlos Larmond to attempting to leave Canada for terrorist activity, and Suliman Mohamed to conspiring to enhance a terrorist group's ability.

The Larmond brothers also pleaded guilty to offences committed in custody, including threats to correctional officers and inmates, and unlawful communication.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions, emphasizing the gravity of "home grown" terrorism and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

Sentencing decision following convictions for human trafficking of a minor, living on the avails of prostitution of a person under 18, assault, and breaches of recognizance.

The offender lured a vulnerable 17‑year‑old to another city under the guise of a romantic relationship and forced her into prostitution across multiple cities, retaining the proceeds and using violence and threats to maintain control.

The court considered mandatory minimum sentences under the Criminal Code for trafficking and procuring offences, along with aggravating factors including the victim’s age, exploitation, violence, and extensive commercial sexual activity.

Despite the offender’s youth and limited prior record, denunciation and deterrence were emphasized.

A global sentence of six years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for time served, with ancillary orders including sex offender registration, a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and no‑contact provisions.