H. Lischak

The offender, Christopher Watts, pleaded guilty to breaching a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by being in the presence of female children under 18 without supervision.

This was his fourth breach of the LTSO.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and separation, giving primary consideration to the protection of children.

The offender's lack of insight and resistance to rehabilitation were aggravating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody on a 1:1 basis, rejecting enhanced credit due to the need for public protection and the offender's high risk of recidivism.

E.T., a young person, faced charges of robbery, possession of a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of a stolen vehicle.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a general resemblance of E.T. to one of the robbers, E.T.'s possession of a similar jacket seven days after the robbery, and his presence in the victim's stolen vehicle.

The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman, emphasizing that an inference of guilt must be the only reasonable inference, not merely a probable one.

The court found that while E.T.'s guilt was more likely than not, the identification evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the robbery-related charges.

Similarly, for the possession of stolen vehicle charge, there was no evidence that E.T. had control over the vehicle or knowledge that it was stolen.

All charges were dismissed.