Heather Donkers

The defendant pleaded guilty to disobeying a court order contrary to s. 127 of the Criminal Code, the order having been issued under Ontario's Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017.

The order prohibited contact with and proximity to the complainant.

The defendant approached the complainant at a casino, tapped her on the shoulder, spoke to her, smirked, and stood behind her for ten minutes.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and sought twelve months' imprisonment less pre-sentence custody.

The defence sought time served.

The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal record including multiple prior breach convictions, prior convictions for advertising sexual services and deriving material benefit therefrom, and a history of non-compliance with court orders.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and a traumatic upbringing.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant's decision to remain at the casino minimized the offence and found a sentencing leap rather than an incremental step was warranted given the defendant's persistent pattern of disregard for court orders.

This decision concerns the prosecution of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey Team for sexual assault.

The complainant, E.M., alleged that after consensual sexual activity with Michael McLeod, she was sexually assaulted by McLeod and his teammates in a London hotel room.

The accused maintained that E.M. was a willing and active participant.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant’s evidence, including contradictions with video evidence and other witness testimony.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the accused and acquitted all five.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the law of consent, credibility, and the use of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault trials.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to admit a text message as hearsay evidence under the principled exception in a high-profile sexual assault prosecution.

The court reviews the necessity and reliability requirements for hearsay, ultimately finding that the reliability threshold is not met and dismissing the application.

The ruling provides a detailed application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Bradshaw and R. v. Charles on the dangers of hearsay and the use of corroborative evidence.

The Crown sought to admit a text message sent by Brett Howden to Taylor Raddysh as past recollection recorded, an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court reviewed the requirements for admissibility, including reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and the witness’s ability to vouch for the accuracy of the record.

The court found that while the first three requirements were met, Mr. Howden could not vouch for the accuracy of the text message, as he had no memory of sending it and could not confirm its truthfulness.

As a result, the application to admit the text message as past recollection recorded was denied.

This decision addresses a defence motion for a mistrial after a jury note alleged unprofessional conduct by defence counsel, raising concerns about jury impartiality.

The court reviews the legal principles governing mistrials, including the presumption of jury impartiality, the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, and the discretion to discharge jurors or declare a mistrial.

The court finds that the fairness of the trial has been compromised and grants the motion for a mistrial, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for the clearest of cases where no other remedy will suffice.

This sentencing decision concerns M.S., who was found guilty of sexual interference and two counts of assault against his daughters, A1 and A2.

The court reviews the facts of the offences, the impact on the victims, the offender’s background including Indigenous heritage and intergenerational trauma, and the results of a Gladue report and Sentencing Circle.

The court considers the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Ultimately, the court imposes a conditional sentence of two years less a day for sexual interference, concurrent 90-day sentences for assault, followed by two years’ probation and various ancillary orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services, contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Involvement spanned from September 2018 to March 2020, facilitating a family member's human trafficking activities by managing finances, booking hotel rooms, and transporting victims.

The court considered aggravating factors including the number of victims, profound impact, duration of the offence, and the enabling role, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, first-time offender status, and compliance with bail.

The court rejected the claim of believing prostitution was legal and the lack of remorse for victims.

A two-year less one-day conditional sentence was imposed, along with two years of probation and a DNA order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while allowing for community service given the lower moral culpability compared to the principal offender.

Joel Ramocan pleaded guilty to one global count of procuring prostitution involving two adult complainants.

The court had to craft a proportional sentence, distinguishing between procuring prostitution and human trafficking, while acknowledging the defendant's party liability.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victims' vulnerability, the defendant's awareness of the principal offender's coercive actions, and his criminal record.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, rehabilitative efforts, and racialized background.

The court sentenced him to 30 months incarceration, consecutive to his current sentence, along with ancillary orders.

Shawn Norris was found guilty of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

This sentencing decision considered aggravating factors, including three prior impaired driving convictions, multiple victims, and dangerous driving, alongside mitigating factors such as admissions made during trial, employment history, family support, and an acquired brain injury that occurred post-offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives, while also considering the impact of the defendant's subsequent brain injury on the severity of incarceration.

The judge imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The defendant, Shawn Norris, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death, and impaired driving causing bodily harm and death, following a head-on collision.

The court found the defendant's driving objectively dangerous and a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care, considering his erratic driving over several kilometers, including crossing a median and swerving into oncoming traffic.

Despite arguments of tire deflation or a sudden physical event, the court found no evidentiary support for these.

The court also found the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by a combination of voluntarily consumed drugs (methadone, lorazepam, trazadone, venlafaxine), noting he "double dosed" on methadone and took unprescribed Lorazepam, and was aware of the drugs' potential impairing effects.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference for the driving was drug impairment and that the mens rea presumption was not rebutted.

The defendant, Christopher Noonan, pleaded guilty to four counts: child luring, unlawful possession of child pornography, unlawfully accessing child pornography, and unlawfully distributing child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature and quantity of child pornography, the young age of depicted children, and the attempt to groom a 13-year-old, alongside mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior criminal record, heartfelt remorse, and commencement of sex offender counselling.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child abuse offences, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of three years.

Ancillary orders included DNA analysis, 20 years of Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and 5-year prohibitions on attending public places where children are present, seeking employment/volunteer positions with minors, contact with minors (unless supervised), and using anonymous internet programs.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against a child, brought pre-trial applications alleging a section 7 Charter breach for lost evidence and seeking to adduce third-party suspect evidence.

The accused argued that police failed to preserve evidence by not searching his recreational vehicle at the time of the initial complaint, which would have revealed the absence of sex toys.

The court dismissed the lost evidence application, finding the existence of such evidence was speculative and the police decision not to search was reasonable.

The court also dismissed the third-party suspect application, ruling that the complainant's alleged prior statement about her father lacked sufficient connection to the specific crimes to be probative.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify outside the courtroom by way of closed-circuit television.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault against his former intimate partner, opposed the application.

The court found that the complainant's severe anxiety and physical symptoms warranted the use of a testimonial aid.

The application was granted, as testifying via CCTV would facilitate the complainant giving a full and candid account of the alleged offences.