Gary Pickard

The offender, a financial advisor, pleaded guilty to defrauding 25 victims of over $1.8 million over a seven-year period.

The court found the offending to be a grave breach of trust involving sophisticated planning, forged documents, and vulnerable victims.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 5.5 years in a federal penitentiary, ordered restitution of over $560,000, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of over $1.3 million, and issued a 20-year prohibition order.

This is a sentencing decision for Andrew Kirkpatrick, who pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a weapon (a pellet gun) arising from a domestic incident.

The accused shot the complainant, his intimate partner, in the neck while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 180 days, 18 months probation, and a 10-year s. 109 order, which the court ultimately imposed.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and completion of a Partner Assault Response Program, alongside significant aggravating factors including prior convictions, the dangerous nature of the assault, lack of genuine remorse, and the domestic violence context.

The decision discusses the application of sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence, and the criteria for conditional sentence orders under the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for three counts of assault against his on-again/off-again partner.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider consent, self-defence, defence of property, and the law in Scopelliti, and by treating the assaults as domestic violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that self-defence and defence of property were not raised at trial, there was no evidence of consent, the Scopelliti reference was dicta, and the evidence supported a finding of a domestic relationship.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and two counts of breaching a recognizance.

The trial focused on the issue of consent, with conflicting accounts from the complainant and the accused.

The Crown's application to admit similar fact evidence was dismissed, as its probative value was deemed outweighed by its prejudicial effect due to generic similarities and a key factual distinction.

Prior consistent statements by the complainant were also excluded as there was no evidence of recent fabrication.

The court found both parties generally credible, but the complainant's testimony regarding her actions and candor raised questions.

Ultimately, the accused's evidence created a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all charges.

This sentencing decision follows a jury conviction of Nicholas Jenkins for three counts of trafficking and three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin.

Tianna Morgan was convicted of three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, and one count of obstructing a peace officer, plus a breach of probation.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the fentanyl convictions for both defendants due to unknown quantities and lack of specific knowledge, entering convictions for heroin instead.

Jenkins received a global sentence of six years and six months, reduced to five years and 295 days after pre-sentence credit.

Morgan received a global sentence of time served (305 days) and three years probation, with a focus on rehabilitation.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court convicted the accused of sexual offences against one child complainant and online communication offences involving another child complainant.

The court declined to use the online-messaging evidence as similar fact evidence on the first set of counts because of tainting concerns, but accepted the younger complainant's evidence as credible and reliable under the W.D. framework.

On the internet-related counts, the court found identity proved beyond a reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence, rejecting the alternate-suspect theory and applying Villaroman.

The completed offence of making child pornography was not made out because the images had been pre-existing, but the accused was convicted of attempt under the Ancio framework.

The accused was acquitted on one recognizance breach count but convicted on the remaining substantive and derivative breach counts.

The defendant, Gerald Quigley, was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death following a multi-vehicle accident caused by his failure to inspect and maintain air brakes on his tractor-trailer.

The Crown sought 7-8 years incarceration and a 15-20 year driving prohibition, while the Defence proposed 2-4 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior similar offence and a pattern of disregarding safety regulations, and mitigating factors such as a long employment history and care for his mother.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and specific deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years incarceration and an 11.5-year driving prohibition, effective from the sentencing date, ensuring the prohibition lasts 15 years from the accident date.

A DNA order was also issued.

The accused, Gerald Quigley, was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 400.

The court found that the accused failed to conduct a mandatory daily inspection of the tractor-trailer's air brakes, resulting in severely compromised braking ability.

This failure constituted a wanton and reckless disregard for public safety and a marked departure from reasonable driving conduct.

The court concluded that the accused's criminal negligence was a significant contributing cause of the victim's death.

Convictions were entered for both charges, with the dangerous operation causing death charge conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with four counts of breaching a probation order and possession of scissors for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The Crown alleged that the defendant possessed scissors as a weapon based on his admission of suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming group home staff.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the scissors with the intention to use them as a weapon.

The defendant was acquitted of counts 1 and 2 (weapon-related charges) but convicted of counts 3, 4, and 5 (breaches of probation for failing to reside where directed, failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and communicating with persons with criminal records).