Geneviève Eliany

The applicant applied to strike his guilty pleas to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, arguing they were involuntary and uninformed due to pressure from his counsel and family, and confusion over the charges.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant actively participated in resolution discussions, understood the nature of the allegations, and made a conscious, volitional choice to plead guilty.

The court also found no miscarriage of justice, as there was no basis to question the applicant's factual guilt or his belief in his own guilt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and failing to comply with a probation order, arguing the trial judge erred in finding sufficient evidence to link him to the person named in the Information and Probation Order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's confirmation of his identity at arraignment, his counsel's statements, and circumstantial evidence including eyewitness testimony and matching details in court documents were sufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after admitting to causing the death of the victim.

The defence raised not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused suffered from Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder exacerbated by prolonged substance use, and that his internal predisposition — including a vulnerable brain, prior episodes of psychosis, and features of borderline and antisocial personality disorder — contributed causally to his mental state at the time of the offence.

Applying the holistic approach from R. v. Stone and R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found the drug-induced psychosis constituted a disease of the mind and that the continuing danger factor was satisfied.

A verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was entered.

This decision addresses the acquittal of R.N., a young person charged with historical sexual offences alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 1987.

The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the framework from R. v. W.(D.).

Despite finding both witnesses credible, the judge identified reliability concerns and ultimately found reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt.

The decision highlights the challenges in assessing historical abuse allegations, especially when evidence is conflicting and dates uncertain.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a mother convicted after trial of assault with a weapon against her young son over nearly three years.

The court rejects the parties' joint proposal for a suspended sentence with probation, finding it insufficient to reflect the offender’s moral blameworthiness, the child’s vulnerability, and the serious harm caused.

The judge emphasizes the limited applicability of the Anthony-Cook test post-trial, the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, and the aggravating factors including the pattern of conduct, breach of trust, and impact on the victim.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender’s progress and lack of prior record, the court imposes an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a weapons prohibition.

This decision addresses sentencing for breaches of a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, imposed to protect children from sexual violence.

The accused, Lord Leland Gilbert, was acquitted of sexual offences but found guilty of breaching the prohibition order by associating with a child without required permissions.

The court imposed an 18-month global jail sentence (15 months for the prohibition breach and 3 months consecutive for breaching probation), followed by 3 years probation.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of breaching such orders, the aggravating factors including the nature and blatant disregard of the breach, and the offender’s prior record.

The court also discusses the application of the Kienapple principle, Gladue considerations, and the jump principle in sentencing.

This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.

The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's 911 call statements, where he confessed to "hurting someone" arguing the 911 operator was not a person in authority or, alternatively, that the statements were voluntary.

The defence argued the operator was a person in authority and the statements were involuntary due to the defendant's intoxication and emotional state, which prevented him from having an operating mind.

The court found the 911 operator was a person in authority but concluded, after a voir dire, that the defendant possessed an operating mind at the time of the call, making his statements voluntary and admissible.

Raven Joseph-Soroka and Ashley Wilson were charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on police surveillance of the accused's movements and the items found in their vehicle, including fentanyl, a digital scale, numerous small baggies, and cash.

The court found that when viewed cumulatively and in light of human experience, the circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative explanations for the accused's activities, leading to convictions for both accused on both charges.

Joseph-Soroka was found to be a party to Wilson's trafficking under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

The Defence brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, which permits warrantless searches of vehicles and occupants for unlawfully stored cannabis, violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it is unreasonable and overbroad.

The Crown contended the provision is constitutional, citing public safety and the regulatory nature of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 12(3) does not infringe either section of the Charter, is reasonable, and is justified by its regulatory purpose and the exigencies of vehicle searches.

The accused was charged with five counts of robbery and five counts of disguise with intent relating to convenience store robberies in Hamilton in February 2019.

The Crown's case relied primarily on recognition evidence from family members and surveillance video.

The defence presented evidence from the accused's girlfriend and father challenging the identification.

The court found that while the Crown witnesses were sincere, their testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies, poor quality surveillance footage, and contradictions with other evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the Crown had proven the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt and entered verdicts of not guilty on all ten counts.

The accused, a 16-year-old youth, was charged with assaulting a pregnant woman causing bodily harm during a family celebration.

The Crown alleged the accused punched and kicked the complainant.

The accused testified he only slapped the complainant in self-defence after she pushed and hit him.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness whose testimony was consistent with photographic evidence of her injuries.

The accused's testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and his post-offence conduct of leaving without his shoes suggested consciousness of guilt.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on pre-charge delay of approximately 15 months and 22 days.

The charges included possession of property not exceeding $5,000, mischief under $5,000, possession of break-in instruments, stealing a motor vehicle with a value not exceeding $5,000, driving while disqualified, and attempted theft of a motor vehicle.

The offences were alleged to have occurred on February 28, 2017.

DNA evidence was obtained and a suspect was identified in July 2017, but the investigating officer failed to follow up on the DNA warrant directive.

No investigative steps were taken from July 2017 to September 2018.

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed to lay charges in July 2017, and that the investigating officer's dereliction of duty, combined with a lack of supervisory oversight protocols, constituted a breach of the applicant's section 7 Charter rights under the residual category relating to the integrity of the judicial process.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.