Heather Palin

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.

Bradley Turner, an Uber driver, pleaded guilty to three counts of obtaining sexual services for consideration from persons under 18, contrary to s. 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

He propositioned and groomed teenage girls (aged 14-15, though he believed them to be 16-17) for sexual services, sending money and attempting to arrange meetings.

The court considered aggravating factors including the number of victims, age disparity, persistence, attempts at concealment, and the profound harm caused to victims.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, lack of criminal history, pro-social history, and a recent diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in child sexual abuse cases, citing R. v. Friesen and R. v. Alcorn.

Despite mitigating factors, the court found a significant custodial sentence necessary.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The trial occurred after amendments to the Criminal Code regarding drinking and driving offences.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, despite evidence of poor driving and a strong odour of alcohol.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of the over-80 charge, relying on the presumption of accuracy under the new legislation and determining that breath readings were admissible despite a Charter violation regarding the right to counsel.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The accused believed the complainant was 17 years old based on her statements to him and his family, her Facebook profile, her association with a group of older teenagers, and her participation in activities typical of older youth.

The court found that the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and held a genuine subjective belief that she was 16 or older.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with an elevated blood alcohol content, as well as provincial offences related to leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.

The accused was found unconscious in the driver's seat of a damaged vehicle parked in a private driveway.

Police discovered open alcohol in the vehicle and obtained breath samples showing blood alcohol levels of 171 and 164 mg/100mL.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle, that any Charter breaches were minimal and justified by exigent circumstances, and that the evidence was admissible.

The accused was convicted on all charges.

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.