Gordon Douglas Cudmore

The court sentenced Michael Allan McIndoo for multiple offences including child luring, making and possessing child pornography, extortion, and breaches of a prohibition order.

The decision reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, the applicable legal principles, and comparable case law.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9.25 years, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and child protection, and made several ancillary orders including SOIRA, DNA, forfeiture, and non-communication orders.

Wesley Berman was charged with aggravated assault after stabbing Jordan Stiles during a confrontation over a dog.

Stiles had refused to return the dog despite a court order.

Berman claimed self-defence, stating Stiles attacked him.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties and the elements of self-defence under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code.

The judge found Stiles' testimony unreliable and accepted Berman's account that he was attacked and used the knife in self-defence.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Berman did not act in lawful self-defence, leading to an acquittal.

The defendants brought a pre-trial application challenging the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (ITO) for the Thorndale premises, arguing a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

They sought to exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the ITO provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the search warrant, concluding that the totality of circumstances, including frequent visits by the target's vehicle to the premises, its movements before and after suspected drug transactions, and counter-surveillance driving, established a credibly-based probability of evidence of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offence.

Therefore, no s. 8 Charter violation occurred.

Even if there had been a breach, the court determined that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police conduct was not serious, and the real and reliable evidence was of significant probative value, outweighing the impact on the accused's interests.

The application was dismissed.

The offender, a teacher, was found guilty of sexual exploitation of a student.

At sentencing, the offender brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year under s. 153 of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the breach of trust, grooming, and post-offence conduct.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months in jail followed by 12 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference against his 15-year-old step-sister.

The victim subsequently committed suicide, with diary entries indicating the abuse played a significant role in her decision.

The accused had a prior conviction for sexually assaulting his biological sister.

The Crown sought two years less a day, while the defence sought 16 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the devastating impact on the victim and her family, the breach of trust, and the accused's lack of insight or remorse.

The accused was sentenced to 22 months in custody, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a 20-year s. 161 prohibition and a lifetime SOIRA registration.

The accused, a mother and her boyfriend, were charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the mother's 20-month-old child died from severe scald burns.

The child was accidentally burned by hot coffee, suffering third-degree burns to 25 percent of his body.

Neither accused sought medical attention for the child over the three days leading to his death, despite the obvious severity of the injuries.

The mother claimed she delegated care to her boyfriend and was unaware of the child's deteriorating condition, while the boyfriend argued he had no legal duty of care as he was not the child's parent.

The court rejected both defences, finding the mother's testimony implausible and establishing that the boyfriend acted as a guardian with a legal duty of care.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts, as their failure to seek medical treatment constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent or guardian.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempted murder, unlawful confinement, uttering death threats, and assaulting a police officer.

Although he pleaded guilty, he advanced a mental disorder defence seeking a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The trial judge rejected the NCR defence and imposed a sentence of 20 years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant sought leave to appeal sentence, contending it was manifestly unfit and that insufficient weight was given to his mental illness as a mitigating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction as abandoned and dismissed the appeal from sentence, finding the 20-year sentence was not manifestly unfit and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental condition.

This pre-trial decision addresses the voluntariness of statements made by the accused during a police interview in a case involving charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation.

The court found that statements made prior to the accused's apparent arrest were involuntary and inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove the accused had an 'operating mind' (i.e., awareness that statements could be used against him).

However, statements made after the apparent arrest and subsequent consultation with duty counsel were deemed voluntary and admissible, subject to further Charter arguments.

The court also considered and dismissed arguments of police trickery, finding it did not meet the 'community shock test' or undermine reliability.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference involving his daughter when she was between the ages of 3 and 9.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, her application of the proper legal test, or the adequacy of her reasons.

The trial judge's findings were entitled to deference, and the pathway to conviction was fully explained in the reasons provided.

The applicants were convicted of arson following a trial.

Before sentencing, the trial judge retired and the matter was reassigned to a new judge pursuant to s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code.

The applicants brought a motion for a mistrial, arguing that the failure to provide reasons for the trial judge's inability to complete the case compromised the appearance of justice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appearance of justice does not require disclosure of personal reasons for a judge's retirement or reassignment, and there was no evidence of bias or unfairness.

The offender pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident knowing that bodily harm was caused, contrary to section 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code.

The offender struck a pedestrian with her vehicle on January 1, 2015, causing serious injuries including a fractured skull and dental damage, then fled the scene without offering assistance.

The central sentencing issue was whether incarceration was appropriate.

The Crown sought a jail sentence in the range of six to nine months based on sentencing precedents emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a suspended sentence with probation and community service.

The court imposed a non-custodial sentence consisting of a $1,000 fine, a two-year probation order with 200 hours of community service, and a two-year driving prohibition, finding that jail was not the only viable sentencing option despite the seriousness of the offence.

The accused was charged with possession and making available child pornography after police found illicit images on his computer, which was running the LimeWire peer-to-peer file sharing program.

The accused pled guilty to possession but contested the making available charges, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had limited technical knowledge, did not know deleted images were saved, and took active steps to prevent file sharing once he learned of the risk.

The court rejected the Crown's argument of wilful blindness and acquitted the accused of making available child pornography.

During a murder trial, the court was required to determine the admissibility of a statement made by the accused to police after earlier statements had been excluded due to a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The defence argued the later statement was tainted by the earlier constitutional breach and was not voluntary.

Applying the analytical framework for tainted statements and the common law confessions rule, the court held that the earlier breach had been cured by intervening events, including the accused’s arrest for murder and multiple opportunities to consult counsel.

The court further found the police interview tactics did not constitute inducements or oppression and did not overbear the accused’s will.

The statement was proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was admissible.

The accused was charged with second degree murder following the stabbing death of his former intimate partner.

The accused conceded that he unlawfully caused the victim's death but argued that the offence should be reduced to manslaughter due to provocation and intoxication.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.D. and the legal test for provocation, finding that the accused's actions were deliberate rather than sudden.

The court rejected the defences of provocation and intoxication, finding the accused guilty of second degree murder.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to the United States for a conspiracy charge in Louisiana.

The applicant argued the surrender violated his mobility rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable as the Cotroni factors favoured surrender, given that most witnesses and the servers were located in the United States.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit videotaped out‑of‑court statements made by a witness to undercover officers in a “Mr. Big” operation as substantive evidence under the principled hearsay exception.

The witness recanted or professed lack of memory during cross‑examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that although necessity was established, the Crown failed to demonstrate threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The witness’s repeated claims of memory loss prevented meaningful cross‑examination and undermined the jury’s ability to assess reliability.

Additionally, the inducements and incentives inherent in the “Mr. Big” scenario raised serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the statements.

The videotaped statements were therefore ruled inadmissible as substantive evidence.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their claim for delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting that the appellant did nothing to pursue his claim for 10 years and offered no explanation or excuse.

The court also noted there was no evidence of steps taken to gain entry into Canada to comply with a previous order, and the appellant did not have a strong prima facie case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Crown appealed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and one year of probation imposed on the respondent for the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence manifestly inadequate given the extreme breach of trust, the victim's developmental vulnerabilities, and the devastating impact on the family.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to two years less a day of imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from repeated sexual touching and two specific incidents involving a child complainant who was a friend of the appellant's daughter.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the verdicts, alleging physical impossibility, logical inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, and improper treatment of defence expert evidence concerning erectile dysfunction.

Applying the unreasonable verdict standard, the court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings were open on the record and that the identified flaws did not undermine the overall reasonableness of the convictions.

Although one reference to the expert evidence was erroneous, it did not affect the result.

The accused was charged with the murder of his estranged wife.

The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal because the forensic evidence failed to establish definitively that the deceased had died from foul play, creating a gap in the evidence regarding causation.

The Court of Appeal set aside the directed verdict and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of motive, opportunity, and premature knowledge of the manner of death from which a properly instructed jury could infer guilt, and that the trial judge erred in weighing the evidence and directing an acquittal.