G. Gaganiaras

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code following the discovery of 148 images on USB devices seized from his residence.

The central issue was whether the material possessed constituted child pornography within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the images, depicting prepubescent boys in sexualized poses while clothed or partially clothed, met the statutory definition of child pornography as they depicted sexual organs or anal regions as their dominant characteristic for a sexual purpose.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old complainant.

This decision addresses sentencing, including the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences, the fit and proportionate sentence, and the application of the Kienapple rule.

The court found the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for these offences unconstitutional, imposed a 15-month imprisonment sentence for sexual interference, and stayed the other convictions.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample into an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, arising from a R.I.D.E. check stop.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally failed to comply with the breath demand.

The court found that the accused was cooperative throughout the process, made nine attempts to provide a sample within approximately four minutes, and was given minimal initial instruction and demonstration.

The court concluded that the rapid escalation of the situation, conflicting instructions from two officers, lack of clear feedback on why samples were unsuccessful, and the accused's repeated requests to try again after arrest created a reasonable doubt as to whether the failure was willful or intentional.

The accused was acquitted.