Gil Labine

The court sentenced Derek Kenney to 13 years’ incarceration for four counts of sexual assault against four separate complainants.

The decision details the facts of each offence, the circumstances of the offender, the impact on the victims, and the application of sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, the positions of Crown and Defence, and the principle of totality, ultimately imposing consecutive sentences and ancillary orders including SOIRA, DNA, and weapons prohibitions.

The accused, Courtney LaBelle, was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her 11-year-old son.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, considering the brutal nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the statutory requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's Indigenous background and drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, which diminished her moral culpability.

The court balanced these factors, rejecting both the Crown's request for 18 years and the defence's request for 10 years, ultimately imposing a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained after police conducted a warrantless entry into their apartment while investigating suspected animal cruelty.

Officers forcibly entered despite the occupant repeatedly demanding a warrant and despite the absence of ongoing sounds indicating distress.

The court held that exigent circumstances did not exist and that the Crown failed to justify the warrantless search under s. 8 of the Charter.

Statements made by one accused prior to entry were admissible, but statements by the other accused obtained while she was effectively detained without being advised of her right to counsel violated s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the dog, the presence evidence, and the improperly obtained statement.

In a judge-alone criminal trial on historical sexual assault allegations, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.

The complainant alleged a sexual assault and threat occurring when she was 14, while the accused denied the allegations and advanced alibi evidence supported by employment records and defence evidence.

The court accepted the accused's evidence regarding his whereabouts and clothing habits, found aspects of the complainant's testimony troubling, and concluded the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.