G. Hendry

The offender pled guilty to procuring sexual services and obtaining a material benefit from the commission of an offence.

The offences occurred over a two-year period while the offender and the victim were in an intimate relationship and had a child together.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the victim's youth and the offender's encouragement of her to work while pregnant, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of a prior record, and the nine-year gap since the offences during which the offender lived pro-socially.

The court sentenced the offender to time served (one day in custody) after applying 557 days of pre-trial and bail credit, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the needs of the offender's child and elderly parents.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow two complainants to testify remotely from Sudbury.

The complainants cited childcare responsibilities, mental health issues, addiction recovery, and fear of the accused as reasons for their reluctance to testify in person.

The court balanced the rights of the vulnerable witnesses with the accused's right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Finding no prejudice to the accused in a judge-alone trial, the court granted the application, ordering the complainants to testify via video conference from the Sudbury courthouse.

The court sentenced K.D., a young person, for being an accessory after the fact to the offence of discharging a firearm with intent, following a guilty plea.

The case arose from a fatal shooting at the Pickering Casino Resort.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, but the court found that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted and that a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold K.D. accountable.

The court imposed a 6-month deferred custody and supervision order followed by 12 months of probation, with conditions, and ancillary orders including a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

This decision addresses an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code by the defendants to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The complainant testified she was plied with drugs and alcohol and procured for sexual services.

The defendants sought to introduce cellphone location data showing the complainant at hotels providing sexual services independently prior to meeting them.

The court found the evidence relevant to challenge the procurement claim and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to restrictions on salacious details.

The application was allowed, permitting cross-examination on these activities.

Y.A., a young person, was sentenced for serious offences including sexual trafficking, assault, and illegal firearm possession.

The court applied the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration, while acknowledging diminished moral blameworthiness for young persons.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the vicious nature of the assaults and the accused's criminal record, and mitigating factors including the plea of guilt and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a maximum 3-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought 2 years with 1.5:1 pre-sentence custody credit.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years and 180 days, with 1.5:1 credit for 218 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in 583 days further to serve (2/3 in custody, 1/3 in community), along with ancillary orders.

Mr. Williams, convicted of sex trade-related offenses, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated his rights under sections 7 (security of the person) and 2(b) (freedom of expression) of the Charter.

He contended the provision was overbroad and grossly disproportionate, exacerbating safety risks for sex workers by inhibiting communication.

The Crown argued the provision was constitutional, citing the secondary nature of safety concerns in the PCEPA amendments and the pressing objectives of reducing demand for prostitution.

The court found that s. 286.1(1) did not offend s. 7 but did offend s. 2(b) of the Charter.

However, the court concluded that the infringement of s. 2(b) was saved by section 1 of the Charter, as the objectives were pressing and substantial, the means were rationally connected and minimally impairing, and the benefits outweighed the harms.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to deriving a material benefit from the purchase of sexual services, contrary to section 286.2 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved her relationship with the victim and her pimp, where she coached the victim, monitored her, and received money from her, including a "leaving fee." The court considered significant mitigating factors, including the defendant's guilty plea, lack of criminal record, personal history of exploitation in the sex trade, and significant rehabilitative efforts.

Aggravating factors included the exploitation of a vulnerable young woman and the financial impact on the victim.

The court found comments in the pre-sentence report regarding the defendant's character and attitude unhelpful and disregarded them, emphasizing the proper scope of pre-sentence reports.

Despite the Crown seeking a conditional sentence, the court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, finding it in the defendant's best interest and not contrary to public interest, given the unique and exceptional circumstances, and the low risk of re-offence.

A DNA order was also issued.

The offender was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after accelerating to 117 km/h in a 70 km/h zone and colliding with a left-turning vehicle.

The collision caused catastrophic, permanent traumatic brain injuries to a teenage passenger and serious injuries to the driver.

The Crown sought three years' imprisonment, while the defence sought six months.

The court weighed the profound impact on the victims against the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and the fact that the victim driver's unsafe left turn contributed to the collision.

The offender was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and a three-year driving prohibition.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an intimate relationship involving sex trade activity, drug use, assault allegations, and probation breaches, the court applied the W.D. framework to assess conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.

The court rejected the defence request for a Vetrovec caution and held that no similar fact application was required because the assault evidence formed part of the alleged pattern of control, direction or influence relevant to the prostitution-related counts.

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault, exploitation, and procuring, but convicted of receiving a material benefit from sexual services, one assault limited to the hallway incident on February 4, 2018, and three breach of probation counts based on guilty pleas.

The court held that the parties were not in a legitimate living arrangement under s. 286.2(4)(a), characterizing the relationship as parasitic for purposes of the material benefit offence.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a serious intersection collision.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d).

The court found that police violated his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by psychologically detaining him at the scene without providing rights to counsel, and violated his s. 8 rights by seizing his vehicle's airbag control module without a warrant and failing to file a report to a justice.

The court excluded the module data under s. 24(2).

However, relying on dashcam video from another vehicle, the court found the accused's driving—accelerating to nearly 50 km/h over the speed limit and passing a stopped vehicle in an intersection—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and was a significant contributing cause of the collision.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Zephaniah Bogle pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a loaded firearm, and mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea, lack of prior record, youth, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitative efforts while on stringent bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 years less a day.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 27 months (2 years for the firearm, 3 months consecutive for cocaine), less 222 days for pre-trial custody and house arrest credit, resulting in 1 year and 233 days of remaining custody, followed by 2 years of probation.

The applicant, who was 15 years old and had cognitive limitations at the time of the offences, sought an extension of time to appeal a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) verdict entered 12 years prior.

The applicant argued that he only recently understood the indefinite nature of the NCR disposition and raised several grounds of appeal, including a flawed plea process and fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting he was not NCR.

The court granted the extension, finding that in cases involving youthful offenders with cognitive deficits, the merit of the appeal is the central factor, and the applicant had demonstrated sufficient merit to justify the extension.

The offender, a registered massage therapist, was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault against female clients during massage treatments.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the vulnerability of one victim who suffered from a chronic illness, and the profound psychological impact on both victims.

The court rejected the Crown's request for two years less a day and the defence's request for nine months, sentencing the offender to a total of 13 months' incarceration followed by 18 months' probation.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against a child, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether a letter written by the complainant and retrieved from the trash by her mother constituted a 'record' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The letter was provided to the police and subsequently given to the defence as part of Crown disclosure.

The court held that the admissibility regime under s. 278.92 only applies to records in the accused's possession or control obtained outside of Crown disclosure or a successful Mills application.

Consequently, the letter did not qualify as a 'record' under this regime, and its admissibility would be governed by common law rules of evidence.

The accused was charged with assault, aggravated assault, and robbery with a firearm.

The Crown brought an application for directions on whether the common law regime from Seaboyer or s. 276 of the Criminal Code applied to evidence it sought to adduce regarding a co-assailant's statement that the complainant had previously 'raped' the accused.

The court held that s. 276 only applies to evidence adduced by the accused.

Assuming the Seaboyer regime applied, the court ruled the evidence was admissible as it was highly probative of motive and did not invite prohibited twin-myths reasoning.

Lamar Grant applied for a bail review following his detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He argued that a new supervision plan with two sureties, electronic monitoring, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the new sureties and electronic monitoring, combined with the risks posed by COVID-19 given Grant's pre-existing medical conditions and the conditions in detention, amounted to a material change.

The court concluded that his detention was not necessary in the public interest and ordered his release with strict conditions including a recognizance, house arrest, weapons prohibition, no contact with specific individuals, no non-medically prescribed drugs, and GPS monitoring.

Muhammad Asif was found guilty by a jury of ten offences, including possession of property obtained by crime, three counts of robbery, robbery using a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, and four counts of wearing a disguise.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The offences involved a stolen SUV, a technology store robbery, two gas station robberies, and an RBC bank robbery where a loaded sawed-off shotgun accidentally discharged.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, planned nature of crimes, use of weapons, and commission while serving an intermittent sentence.

Mitigating factors included relative youth and eventual acknowledgment of responsibility.

The Crown sought 12 years, defence sought 6 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of nine years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with one count of dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant drove aggressively, making multiple unsafe lane changes, brake-checking other vehicles, and ultimately striking an e-bike rider.

The defendant contended that his driving was not a marked departure from that of a reasonably prudent driver and that the accidents were attributable to other motorists.

After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses, the court found the defendant guilty, concluding that his intentional aggressive driving—including rapid acceleration, aggressive braking, unsafe lane changes, and gesturing at other drivers—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required and posed significant risk to other highway users.

The accused, a massage therapist, was charged with sexually assaulting two female clients during therapeutic massages.

The Crown brought an application to use the evidence of each complainant as mutually reinforcing similar fact evidence.

The court granted the application, finding the probative value of the similar fact evidence eclipsed any potential prejudice.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility contests, the court rejected the accused's denials and found that the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual touching occurred without consent.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

This pre-trial ruling addresses whether the repeal of section 634 of the Criminal Code, which eliminated peremptory challenges in jury selection, operates retrospectively or prospectively.

The accused argued that the amendment affects a substantive right and should apply prospectively, allowing him to exercise peremptory challenges.

The Crown contended it was purely procedural and should apply retrospectively.

The court, acknowledging conflicting judicial opinions, found the elimination of peremptory challenges impacts a substantive right by removing the parties' ability to influence jury composition and enhance confidence in impartiality.

Consequently, the repeal was deemed to operate prospectively, permitting the accused to exercise peremptory challenges as his right vested before the repeal's effective date.