H. Kim Taylor

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, mischief, criminal harassment, and breaking and entering against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought to introduce the complainant's audio-recorded statement to police as hearsay evidence for the truth of its contents after the complainant recanted or expressed uncertainty about portions of her original statement at trial.

The court ruled on the admissibility of the hearsay statement under the principled exception established in R. v. Khan, applying the twin criteria of necessity and reliability, and considering whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The accused pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a female victim occurring between 1969 and 1976 when the victim was between 7 and 9 years old, and sexual assault on his biological daughter occurring between 1983 and 1988 when she was between 3 and 9 years old.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of up to two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a blended sentence of six months imprisonment combined with a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA order, SOIRA registration for life, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The court found that while denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of trust and young age of victims, the offender's low risk of reoffending, 28-year absence of further offences, and age and health considerations warranted a sentence less severe than might otherwise be imposed.

Following convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery operation, the court imposed penitentiary sentences on two offenders.

The intercepted shipment contained approximately 3.8 kilograms of heroin concealed in fireplace logs.

The court considered mitigating factors including stringent pre‑sentence bail conditions amounting to house arrest, positive pre‑sentence reports, lack of prior criminal records, and cooperation with police.

The court held that wilful blindness to the nature of the drug was not a mitigating factor following appellate authority.

Given the significant quantity of heroin and the offenders’ respective roles, the court imposed substantial penitentiary terms while recognizing the lesser role of one offender.