Hilton Tse

The court imposed sentence after guilty pleas to impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed single-vehicle crash with severe, life-altering injuries to the passenger.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, including proportionality, parity, denunciation, and general deterrence, the court emphasized Parliament’s enhanced approach to dangerous and impaired driving offences and rejected a conditional sentence as unfit.

Aggravating factors included statutorily aggravating blood-alcohol levels, dangerous operation on a 400-series highway, a recent speeding record, and lasting victim harm, while mitigation included youth, no prior criminal record, guilty plea, employment, and community support.

The court found limited insight and gave tempered weight to late rehabilitative efforts.

A penitentiary sentence of 24 months was imposed concurrently, with a five-year driving prohibition and DNA order.

The defendant, an eighteen-year-old with no prior record, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death after colliding with another vehicle while driving nearly triple the speed limit in a senior safety zone.

The collision resulted in the death of a sixty-year-old man and caused severe, lasting physical and mental injuries to the defendant.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for denunciation and deterrence with the principles of restraint and rehabilitation applicable to youthful first offenders.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to a conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest, followed by three years of probation and a five-year driving prohibition.

Jared Burke was charged with multiple offences including possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, carrying a concealed weapon, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a convenience store.

The court found that Burke's initial possession of a knife for self-defence was not a valid defence for the weapon charges, as the situation was avoidable.

He was found guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and assault (but not assault with a weapon).

For the aggravated assault charge, the court accepted Burke's defence of his brother, finding his actions reasonable given the immediate lethal threat.

The applicant, previously acquitted by a jury in Bermuda of conspiracy to import fentanyl, applied for a stay of proceedings on a Canadian charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from the same events.

The applicant argued that issue estoppel applied because the Bermudan jury must have decided issues in his favour that would preclude a conviction in Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the identity of issues requirement, as the Bermudan jury's verdict could have been based on factors unrelated to the elements of the Canadian charge.

Sentencing decision for offences involving making, transmitting, and possessing child pornography.

The accused, a teacher’s assistant, secretly photographed a vulnerable young student while assisting him in a washroom and distributed the image online while engaging in sexually explicit conversations about abusing children.

Police also discovered a large collection of child pornography and additional images of students taken without their knowledge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child exploitation offences, highlighting the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victims as serious aggravating factors.

Despite mitigating factors including a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and psychological treatment, the offender’s moral culpability was found to be high.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed, reduced by seven months for strict house arrest bail conditions.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his guilty pleas to three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused had engaged in a pattern of predatory behaviour targeting women in apartment buildings, including physical assaults and an incident involving a pellet gun.

The defence conceded the accused met the criteria for long-term offender designation but opposed the dangerous offender designation.

The court found that while the accused presented a serious clinical challenge with paraphilic coercive disorder and schizophrenia, he did not pose a "tremendous future risk" as required for dangerous offender designation.

The court designated the accused as a long-term offender, imposed a two-year custodial sentence, and ordered a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats against a young relative.

The information specified the offences occurred between November 17 and 21.

The accused raised an alibi defence for that specific period.

The court found that while the date of an offence is generally not critical, it becomes critical when an alibi defence is raised.

Because the Crown's evidence failed to prove the offence occurred during the specified timeframe and an amendment would prejudice the accused, the charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a minor cousin, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding an alleged assault occurring between November 17-21, 2016.

The accused provided an alibi defence, testifying he was at a friend's residence during the entire specified period.

The critical issue became the date of the alleged offence.

The complainant's evidence, while credible on the substance of the allegations, established that any assault could not have occurred on the dates specified in the information.

The court found that although the date of an offence is generally not material, it became critical when the accused raised an alibi defence.

The Crown failed to prove the offence occurred within the timeframe alleged, and no amendment to the information was sought.

The charges were dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.