Gregory G. Goulin

A 16-year-old youth was found guilty after trial of aggravated assault as a party to the offence.

The victim, a 15-year-old, was viciously beaten by multiple youth, suffering a traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, brain bleed, vision loss, and permanent psychological effects.

The accused did not directly participate in the physical violence but actively encouraged and facilitated the assault through words, gestures, and conduct.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days (120 days open custody, 60 days community supervision) followed by 6 months' probation, rejecting both the Crown's request for 9 months' custody and the defence's request for probation or deferred custody.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault against his six-month-old daughter, who presented at the hospital with severe, life-threatening injuries including a liver laceration and a bowel obstruction.

The accused claimed the injuries were accidental, resulting from him dropping and catching the infant.

The Crown alleged the injuries were caused by intentional blunt force trauma, specifically squeezing.

The court rejected the accused's accidental explanation, relying on medical evidence that the injuries were inconsistent with a drop/catch, and accepted the mother's evidence that the accused confessed to squeezing the infant in anger.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for armed robbery with a knife, assault with a knife, and breach of probation.

The accused had an extensive criminal history spanning nearly three decades, including multiple violent offences, sexual assaults with weapons, robberies, and breaches of court orders.

The court found the accused met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code, establishing a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour showing failure to restrain conduct and likelihood of causing death or injury.

The court rejected the defence argument that cognitive behavioural therapy could adequately manage the accused's risk in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.

This is a Crown appeal from acquittals on charges against a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons for engaging in an unfair business practice by making an unconscionable representation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The trial involved a complex transaction where the consumer purchased a 2011 GMC Acadia with negative equity financing, trading in a 2011 Saturn.

The Justice of the Peace acquitted all defendants after finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unconscionable representation had been made.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded on the basis of the settlement, which included the cancellation of the registrations and undertakings by the applicants not to apply for registration for a period of 10 years.

The accused was tried on three sexual offence counts and one count of threatening death arising from allegations by a family member concerning events said to have occurred when the complainant was 12 and 13 years old, and a later threat allegation.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court held that the Crown's case turned on the complainant's evidence, but significant reliability and credibility concerns arose from contradictory evidence about the accused's residence during the relevant period, doubts about the authenticity of photographs, and persuasive defence evidence that the complainant had attended at the accused's workplace and left a note before the April 2, 2012 confrontation.

The court rejected speculative Crown submissions that defence witnesses had concocted their evidence and emphasized the Crown's obligation to act fairly and on a proper evidentiary foundation.

The Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all counts.

Following the accused's conviction for armed robbery, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation, the Crown obtained a production order under s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code to obtain records from the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society for use in a sentencing hearing and dangerous offender application.

The accused challenged the production order on grounds that it was invalid and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court ruled that the production order was valid and that the sealed records were relevant to sentencing and the dangerous offender proceeding.

The court ordered the records unsealed and made available to the Crown, subject to later rulings on admissibility as documentary evidence.

A voir dire was held to determine whether Edward Liu, a conditionally accredited Mandarin interpreter, was qualified to interpret for two Mandarin-speaking complainant witnesses at a preliminary hearing.

The Crown sought to have Liu qualified despite his conditional accreditation status from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that conditionally accredited interpreters should only be used for less complex proceedings.

The court found Liu competent and capable of interpreting and qualified him to serve as interpreter at the preliminary hearing.