Heather E. Perkins-McVey

Tamara Lich and Christopher Barber were convicted of mischief arising from their leadership roles in the Freedom Convoy, which gridlocked Ottawa from January 29 to February 18, 2022.

Barber was additionally convicted of counselling others to disobey a Court Order.

The Crown sought unprecedented custodial sentences of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber.

The defence sought absolute discharges or non-custodial dispositions.

The court imposed conditional sentences of 18 months for Barber (concurrent with 3 months for the counselling conviction) and 15.5 months for Lich (after crediting 74 days pre-sentence custody), with strict conditions including house arrest, curfews, and community service.

The court rejected both the Crown's punitive approach and the defence's request for discharges, finding that conditional sentences with onerous conditions could achieve denunciation and deterrence while respecting principles of proportionality and restraint.

The accused pleaded guilty to domestic violence offences (assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats) after hearing evidence from the complainant and recordings entered into evidence.

The Crown sought a 90-day conditional jail sentence followed by one year of probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that despite the domestic violence context and statutory aggravating factors, the accused's rehabilitation efforts, lack of criminal record, positive pre-sentence report, genuine remorse, and significant collateral consequences (inability to sponsor his pregnant spouse and impact on his business) warranted this disposition.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and codeine, careless storage of a loaded prohibited .32 calibre handgun, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought five years less twelve months credit for time at a treatment facility.

The defence sought a conditional jail sentence for weapons offences and a suspended sentence for drug charges.

The court found exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from typical sentencing ranges, given the accused's extraordinary rehabilitation efforts including completion of a residential treatment program, return to education with a business diploma, community service exceeding 2,100 hours including speaking at schools about addiction, and genuine employment prospects.

The court imposed a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence for firearms offences followed by two years' probation, a suspended sentence for drug charges with two years' probation, and a suspended sentence for the breach with two years' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The offences involved unwanted sexual touching of three female victims during yoga classes where the accused was the instructor.

The Crown sought six to nine months imprisonment; the defence sought 90 days intermittent jail.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict house arrest conditions for two-thirds of the sentence, followed by two years' probation.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, lack of prior record, remorse, and serious degenerative medical condition (Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis).

The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats to cause death, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, maiming and wounding a dog, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred while the accused was experiencing drug-induced psychosis, during which he stabbed a dog multiple times believing he needed to cleanse it of evil, and made threats to cut off the heads of the victim and her children.

The court imposed a sentence of six months for animal cruelty, three months consecutive for threatening, and concurrent sentences for the remaining charges, followed by two years probation.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and fifteen-year animal ownership ban were also imposed.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, recognizing the accused's reduced moral blameworthiness due to his mental state while acknowledging the severity of the offences.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a vehicle while impaired by a drug (inhalant) on June 3, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused was in the driver's seat of a running vehicle while under the influence of aerosol inhalants.

The defence argued the accused did not have care or control as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault.

The court found that although the accused was impaired and in the driver's seat, there was no realistic risk of danger because the accused had a clear plan to remain parked until the effects wore off, the vehicle had a standard transmission with an engaged parking brake requiring multiple discrete acts to set in motion, and the accused's impairment was short-lived with rapid recovery.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to common assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The assault occurred while the accused was in custody at OCDC and involved striking a fellow inmate multiple times in the face following a minor provocation.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day minus pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought probation.

The court imposed a fine of $10 and 24 months of probation, having credited 15 months of pre-sentence custody as sufficient to address deterrence and denunciation.

The sentencing decision applied Gladue principles, considering the accused's Inuit heritage, history of trauma, abuse, and systemic disadvantage.

The accused pleaded guilty to producing 957 marijuana plants in violation of section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The mandatory minimum sentence triggered by the aggravating factors was three years imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum provision under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found the mandatory minimum sentence to be grossly disproportionate both as applied to the accused and as it would reasonably foreseeably apply to other offenders, particularly those with minimal involvement in large-scale operations on third-party property.

The accused, a leading expert in animal brucellosis employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), pleaded guilty to one count of breach of trust and ten regulatory offences.

The breach of trust involved his commercialization of brucellosis diagnostic test kits using intellectual property owned by the CFIA through a company established in China from 2006 to 2010.

The regulatory offences arose from his arrest on October 24, 2012, when he was found attempting to board a flight to China with 17 vials of brucella bacteria improperly packaged in his carry-on luggage.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence, rejecting the defence's request for a conditional sentence despite the accused's exemplary background, advanced age, serious medical conditions, and low risk of recidivism.

The court found that general deterrence and denunciation were the predominant sentencing principles required by the legislative objectives of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act and the Export and Import Permits Act.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and dangerous driving.

The Crown did not proceed with an impaired driving charge.

The accused admitted to driving with a blood alcohol level of 130 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood but raised the defence of necessity, claiming he was forced to drive to escape an imminent threat of physical harm in a parking lot confrontation.

The court found the defence of necessity did not apply and convicted the accused of the over 80 charge while acquitting on the dangerous driving charge.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from a motor vehicle collision on February 8, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial involved Charter voir dire issues regarding the lawfulness of the breath demand and the accused's right to counsel.

The court found violations of the accused's rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the breath sample evidence.

On the merits, the court acquitted the accused of impaired driving but convicted him of dangerous driving based on evidence of cell phone use while driving.

The accused, a Personal Support Worker (PSW) at the Perley-Rideau Hospital, was convicted of common assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code for bending back three fingers of an elderly 90-year-old patient suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease.

The assault caused no physical injury.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four months plus three years probation, emphasizing the breach of trust and need for general deterrence in elder abuse cases.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two to six months plus probation, highlighting the accused's clean record, positive character references, and mental health struggles.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 90 days to be served in the community, followed by one year of probation, finding that while a jail sentence was warranted due to the breach of trust, the specific circumstances and the accused's personal background supported a conditional approach that could adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The accused pleaded guilty to disguise with intent and aggravated assault arising from a convenience store robbery on May 6, 2012.

The accused, aged 25 with no prior record, entered the store with his face concealed, brandished a knife, and stabbed the clerk in the abdomen during a struggle.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, emphasizing general deterrence and public protection.

The defence sought 12 months, arguing for credit for pre-sentence custody and extensive rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed 15 months custody (7 months additional after pre-sentence custody credit) plus two years probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restraint principles applicable to youthful first offenders.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm against a seven-year-old adopted daughter contrary to Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 45 to 60 days imprisonment plus 12 months probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 15 months probation, finding that while a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious nature of the assault and the victim's age, imprisonment was not necessary given the accused's guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, and positive community standing.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The accused pleaded guilty to four charges involving passport fraud, including causing the Passport Office to use forged documents in issuing passports, possession of forged passports, possession of a false wig with intent to commit an indictable offence, and use of a forged passport.

The offences occurred between 2009 and 2011 and were part of a sophisticated scheme to obtain false Canadian passports and identity documents to unlawfully bring his children from Kuwait to Canada, circumventing a custody order that prohibited their removal.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, rejecting a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, lack of criminal record, medical condition, and family support.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of internet luring contrary to section 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-month period, the accused engaged in explicit sexual conversations with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, repeatedly offering money for sex, arranging meetings, and ultimately attending a prearranged location where he was arrested.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence (with credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions) followed by two years probation, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence.

The court found this was not one of the "rarest of cases" warranting a conditional sentence and emphasized that denunciation and general deterrence must be paramount in internet luring offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to failure to remain at the scene of an accident causing death contrary to s.252(1.3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused struck a pedestrian with her vehicle and fled the scene without rendering assistance.

The victim died from injuries sustained in the collision.

The court imposed a five-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months probation and a two-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation against the accused's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The accused, a 20-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to one count of Attempt to Obstruct Justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was observed cleaning the interior of a vehicle that had been used in a homicide, removing evidence including blood and other forensic material.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence plus probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, followed by 2 years probation, along with a 5-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused were charged with offences under sections 86(3), 88(2), and 91(3) of the Criminal Code.

The trial commenced with an application challenging the validity of a search warrant obtained by Ottawa Police on February 4, 2011, to search the residence at 24 Robinson Avenue.

The applicant argued the warrant was obtained without reasonable and probable grounds, that the affidavit contained misleading statements, and that the statutory preconditions for a telewarrant were not met.

The court found that the telewarrant was invalid due to lack of urgency and impracticability, that the information from confidential informants was insufficiently reliable and detailed, and that the affidavit contained careless and misleading drafting.

The court determined the search constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded the physical evidence seized, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the serious nature of the police conduct and the significant intrusion into the accused's private residence.