Gregory Ryan Skerkowski

The court, following guilty pleas and a joint submission from counsel, found Darren James Gaspe to be a Dangerous Offender and imposed a total determinate sentence of seven years and three months, less time already served, followed by an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The decision was informed by expert and Gladue reports, as well as the input of both counsel and the offender.

The court recommended that Mr. Gaspe be considered for a Correctional Service Canada Healing Lodge or a facility offering the Pathways Program, given his Indigenous identity.

The sentence aims to balance punitive and restorative objectives to protect society and support the offender’s rehabilitation.

This is an appeal from a decision rejecting an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment in a child luring case.

The appellant argued the undercover officer offered an opportunity to commit the offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer's initial ambiguous response ("yea sometimes ..... im 14 tho") did not constitute an "opportunity" to commit the offence, as the appellant himself initiated and steered the conversation towards sexually explicit topics, thereby committing the luring offence.

The court emphasized that the entrapment doctrine is reserved for the clearest cases of uncondonable state conduct.

Vaughan Roberts pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The sentencing hearing considered the objective seriousness of the offence (possession linked to drug trafficking, flight from police) alongside significant mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and difficult pre-trial custody.

Crucially, the court treated a prior racist armed robbery attempt against the offender, where he acted in self-defence and was subsequently charged with murder (later dropped), as a significant attenuating circumstance.

The court also considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's life, which influenced the blending of sentencing objectives towards rehabilitation.

Despite the Crown seeking actual incarceration, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 538 days (approx. 18 months) after credit for pre-trial custody, followed by 18 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The applicant, N.R., sought to set aside a guilty verdict for sexual assault and incest, requesting a mistrial due to alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, or alternatively, to reopen the trial to admit fresh DNA evidence.

The court dismissed both applications.

The claim of ineffective assistance was rejected as the court found N.R. failed to prove his counsel prevented him from testifying, accepting counsel's evidence that the decision was N.R.'s.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed because the new DNA reports lacked credibility, were inadmissible, and would not have affected the trial outcome, as the conviction was primarily based on the complainant's testimony.

The defendant, Kristopher Vaughan, was found guilty of sexually assaulting Cheryl Wright and was before the court for sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the location of the assault, the degree of invasiveness, the prolonged nature of the incident, and the significant emotional impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, his military service, health challenges (depression, alcohol/anti-depressant mix), family support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court also factored in the harsher conditions of incarceration due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaughan was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, and several ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and sex offender registration.

Kristopher Vaughan was found guilty of sexual assault.

At the sentencing hearing, the Crown applied on behalf of the victim to lift a publication restriction order previously made under section 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant took no position on the application.

The court, satisfied that the victim understood the effect and consequences of the request, granted the application, thereby permitting the publication of all information pertaining to the court proceeding, notwithstanding that it could identify the complainant.