Ian William Bulmer

This is a sentencing decision for Jeffrey Smith, a police officer, who was found guilty of assault (a lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm).

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim (an Indigenous individual), and the offender's background, including his exemplary character and lack of prior disciplinary history.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 30-60 days, while the defence proposed a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the heightened principles of denunciation and general deterrence for police officers, but also the individualized nature of sentencing and the importance of proportionality.

The judge found that Smith acted in good faith, believing he had grounds for arrest, and the force used was not excessive, though unlawful.

Considering mitigating factors such as his good character, lack of criminal record, and collateral consequences, the court granted a conditional discharge with a 12-month probation order, including community service and a non-communication term with the victim.

Police officers Paul Fyke and Jeffrey Smith were jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation with Mario Maurice Baptiste Jr. during an attempted arrest for theft.

The court found that Constable Smith's initial arrest for theft lacked reasonable and probable grounds, making his use of force unlawful.

However, Constable Fyke's subsequent involvement was justified as he had reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Baptiste for assaulting a peace officer or resisting arrest.

The court acquitted Constable Fyke, finding the Crown failed to prove his force was excessive.

Constable Smith was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault, as the Crown failed to prove his force caused the specific bodily harm alleged.

The defendant, L.R., faced two charges of sexual assault.

The first count involved sexual intercourse where the complainant alleged intoxication and lack of consent, while the defendant asserted consent.

The second count involved an alleged attempt to force oral sex.

The court analyzed the complainant's capacity to consent, considering her alcohol tolerance, a pre-existing sleep disorder, and video evidence.

The court found the complainant had the capacity to consent and did, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in the first count.

The court also found the second allegation highly improbable.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

Sean Osborne, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assault committed while on duty.

The assault involved stepping on a restrained young person's head/neck area and twice kicking him in the chest after arrest.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the Defence sought a discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting that police officers are held to a higher standard due to their position of trust.

Despite significant mitigating factors, including PTSD and extensive community contributions, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to public interest.

A conviction was deemed necessary to convey the seriousness of the offence and breach of public trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with statutory terms.

This case concerns the sentencing of Police Constable James Forcillo for attempted murder.

The court first addressed a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum punishment of five years for attempted murder under s.239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding it did not infringe ss.12 or 7 of the Charter.

The sentencing judge then determined the appropriate sentence, rejecting the defence's submission that Forcillo's moral blameworthiness was low due to a misperception.

The court found that Forcillo acted contrary to his training by shooting a potential threat and failing to use de-escalation, constituting a high level of moral blameworthiness and an egregious breach of trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as positive personal characteristics and the impact of protective custody, the aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority and the serious actual harm caused, substantially outweighed them.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence.

A sentence of six years in the penitentiary was imposed.

Constable Robert Harris was charged with careless use of a firearm contrary to section 86 of the Criminal Code after firing his service weapon twice at a fleeing suspect during a high-speed pursuit.

Harris believed a female passenger was being dragged or run over by the suspect's tow truck when he discharged his weapon.

The court found that Harris's belief was reasonable under the circumstances, though ultimately incorrect, and that his response was proportionate to that belief.

The defendant was acquitted.

A police constable pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after punching a photographer in the face during a noise complaint investigation at a restaurant in Niagara Falls.

The defendant sought an absolute discharge while the Crown sought a suspended sentence.

The court rejected the discharge, finding that while the defendant had significant mitigating factors including a clean record, community involvement, and remorse, the offence constituted a serious breach of trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year probation, including 40 hours of community service, a no-contact order, and a DNA order.

The court emphasized that police officers must be held to a higher standard and that the use of excessive force, particularly in conjunction with an unlawful direction to stop photographing, undermines public confidence in law enforcement.

A Toronto Police Service officer was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a member of the public.

The Crown alleged the officer used excessive force and made an unlawful arrest for public intoxication.

The defence argued the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was intoxicated and posed a safety risk, and that any force used was necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was intoxicated, that there was a risk to safety, and that arrest was necessary.

The court also found the officer was entitled to the defence of honest mistake of fact.

The charge was dismissed.

Police officers convicted of assault causing bodily harm arising from an arrest for public intoxication appealed their convictions and conditional sentences.

The appeal court found that the trial judge misapprehended key medical evidence by concluding the complainant’s injuries independently proved repeated blows, when the medical evidence was equally consistent with a fall during the arrest.

Applying the stringent misapprehension-of-evidence test, the court held the error was material and formed an essential part of the reasoning process leading to conviction.

The Crown argued the convictions could still stand on an alternative theory of unlawful arrest, but the court found the trial judge had not clearly analyzed or relied on that theory.

The convictions were therefore unsafe and a miscarriage of justice occurred.