Gerald J. Chan

The appellant, R. J.-B., appealed his sentence of 35 months in custody for two convictions of sexual assault, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the immigration consequences, which would lead to his automatic deportation.

The appellant sought a reduced sentence of six months less one day per count (consecutive) or a conditional sentence of 18 months per count to preserve his right to appeal the removal order.

The court acknowledged that immigration consequences can be relevant in sentencing but found the proposed sentences manifestly unfit given the egregious nature of the crimes, which involved digital and attempted vaginal penetration of his 16-year-old cousin, whom he was supposed to be helping after she had been previously sexually abused.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence as fit and not demonstrably unfit.

Applications by Uber Canada Inc. and alleged Uber driver Ersan Zukic for stays of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on alleged violations of their right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The defendants were charged with bylaw offences under the City of Mississauga Public Vehicle Licensing By-law 420-04.

The court applied the new analytical framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which establishes presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial court proceedings.

The court found that the total delay of approximately 24-26 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling and that the prosecution failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay.

The court also found that the transitional exceptional circumstance did not apply as the prosecution failed to prove reasonable reliance on the pre-existing law.

Stays of proceedings were granted for all three charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code for non-consensually distributing intimate images of the complainant on a pornographic website.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found the offence to be serious given the prevalence of non-consensual sexting, the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's degree of responsibility.

However, the court considered the accused's exemplary character, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, guilty plea, and the collateral consequences already suffered.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, no contact with the complainant, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

The offender, a 63-year-old man with a distinguished career in education, pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, making child pornography, and counselling the indictable offence of sexual assault.

Over a multi-year period, the offender engaged in online communications with undercover officers posing as individuals interested in child sexual abuse, collected child pornography, created written child pornography depicting violent sexual abuse of a child, and provided detailed instructions to an undercover officer posing as a mother on how to sexually abuse her eight-year-old daughter.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years (six months for possession, 12 months for making, and 18 months for counselling, all consecutive), along with ancillary orders including a five-year prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, DNA sampling, sex offender registration for life, and forfeiture of electronic devices.

The applicants filed complaints regarding police conduct during the G20 summit.

The Director initially directed the Chiefs of Police not to seek extensions of time to serve Notices of Hearing, effectively closing the matters.

The applicants sought judicial review.

Following a Divisional Court decision in another case, the Director reversed his decision and directed the Chiefs to seek extensions, which they did.

The Director then brought a motion to quash the judicial review application on the basis of mootness.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dispute had disappeared and there was no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.

The applicant, a high school English teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his colleagues and the school board.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations of discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed them to proceed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations concerning the time period prior to April 16, 2009, as the applicant could not establish an intention to retaliate for a claim of Code rights before that date.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, attempted murder, and firearm offences arising from a shootout with police.

At trial, he advanced an alibi defence that was not disclosed prior to his testimony.

He argued on appeal that the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding the late disclosure of his alibi, the failure to call his mother as an alibi witness, and the lack of an unsavory witness caution for a key Crown witness.

He also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to serve a notice of alibi.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions and concluding that defence counsel's decision not to serve a notice of alibi was a competent tactical choice.

The appellants, husband and wife, were convicted of second degree murder in the death of their seven-year-old son, who died following months of severe physical abuse.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding the cause of death and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on aiding and abetting, out-of-court statements, and propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the required cogency threshold to affect the verdict, particularly given the tactical decision not to call such evidence at trial.

The Court also found no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and upheld the 18-year parole ineligibility period for the stepmother.

The accused was charged with multiple counts arising from two separate sexual assaults committed against different complainants approximately one month apart.

The trial judge denied the accused's pre-trial application to sever the counts.

The accused was convicted on all charges, and the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to properly balance the relevant factors for severance.

The Court held that the significant risk of prejudice to the accused, including the dangers of credibility cross-pollination and prohibited propensity reasoning, clearly outweighed any minimal benefits to the administration of justice in trying the counts together.