Hali MacLister Adair

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The accused was charged with child luring, sexual interference, and sexual assault.

The court calculated the net delay to be 31.7 months, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for cases in the Superior Court of Justice.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments to attribute additional delay to the defence or to deduct time for exceptional circumstances.

Finding the delay presumptively unreasonable and unrebutted by the Crown, the court granted the application and stayed the charges.

The offender, Lezane Okimaw, pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing bodily harm after a head-on collision that resulted in devastating, life-altering injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a high blood alcohol concentration and the severity of the victim's injuries.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, and sustained sobriety since the incident.

Crucially, the court applied Gladue principles, recognizing the profound impact of intergenerational trauma from residential schools on the offender's moral blameworthiness and addiction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed an eighteen-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 21-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months of probation, a 21-month driving prohibition, and mandatory weapons prohibitions, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the Gladue factors and the offender's rehabilitation efforts, and would not endanger community safety.

The offender pleaded guilty to touching a person under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose.

The offence involved a 15-year-old victim whose family was close friends with the offender's family.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while noting the offender's guilty plea and lack of prior record as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day of imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a section 161 prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to a sexual offence involving a minor.

The court accepted a joint sentencing submission, imposing a period of imprisonment followed by probation and various ancillary orders, including sex offender registration and prohibitions on contact and presence near children.

The decision highlights the application of sentencing principles, balancing aggravating factors such as the breach of trust and significant victim impact, with mitigating factors including the guilty plea and the offender's first-time status.

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a highly intoxicated complainant who lacked the capacity to consent.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to five years, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered the predatory nature of the offence, the accused's concocted story to police, and mitigating factors including his youth, lack of criminal record, and good employment history.

The court sentenced the accused to 28 months' imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The accused, Soheyl Tahan, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant.

The complainant had no memory of the events due to severe intoxication, and the accused claimed memory loss.

The court found the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, specifically her inability to understand the identity of her sexual partner.

The court also found the accused's claims of memory loss and intoxication to be fabricated, indicating a guilty mind.

Tahan was found guilty.

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences, including aggravated assault and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, after trespassing on the victim's property and repeatedly attacking him with an ATV.

The unprovoked attack left the victim with catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.

Considering the offender's extensive criminal record and the devastating impact on the victim, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, along with a 15-year driving prohibition and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Troy Taibinger was charged with multiple offences including aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, possession of stolen property, assault with a weapon, and disqualified driving, stemming from an incident where he allegedly assaulted Darren Heuchan with an ATV and stole items from nearby properties.

The defence challenged the identity of the perpetrator.

The court considered witness descriptions, DNA evidence found on a glove and a rum bottle, and the accused's out-of-court admissions and subsequent recantations.

The judge found the accused's admissions credible and his exculpatory statements unreliable.

The court also addressed a lost evidence application regarding a glove and a mitten, finding their loss insignificant.

Taibinger was found guilty on most counts, including aggravated assault, dangerous operation, possession of stolen ATV, assault with ATV, disqualified driving, break and enter, and possession of property obtained by crime for the stolen laptop and iPad.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment, alleging breaches of s. 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) and s. 7 (arbitrary deprivation of liberty) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both Charter challenges and upheld the mandatory minimum as constitutional.

Mitchell, who is paraplegic, received a sentence of ten months imprisonment; Clouthier received nine months.

Both were subject to two years of probation and ancillary orders including DNA sampling, forfeiture of devices, SOIRA registration, and s. 161 prohibitions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, and relied on inconsistent testimony from the complainant.

The charges arose from incidents following the separation of the parties, including the appellant cutting off the complainant's vehicle and following her on multiple occasions.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge's findings were supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant and that the trial judge adequately addressed any minor discrepancies in the testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the passenger seat of a vehicle in a ditch.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained more than two hours after the alleged offence, thereby losing the statutory presumption of identity.

The Crown attempted to rely on expert opinion evidence to extrapolate the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the alleged offence.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the factual assumptions underlying the expert opinion and rejected the Crown's invitation to perform retrograde extrapolation calculations.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a 57-year-old retired Master Warrant Officer of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to sexual touching of his 14-year-old step-granddaughter contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved digital penetration and occurred during a snow day at the accused's residence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and a five-year section 161 order.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the breach of trust against the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and positive sexual behaviour assessment indicating low risk of reoffence.