I. Horic

The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual assault after engaging in non-consensual vaginal intercourse with a friend who was intoxicated.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought six months followed by probation.

The court rejected the defence's argument that the victim's prior consensual sexual activity with another person mitigated the offender's blameworthiness.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to three years' imprisonment.

The accused was found asleep in a stolen vehicle ten hours after it was taken in an armed robbery by four masked men.

He was in possession of a loaded prohibited handgun.

He pleaded guilty to the firearm offences but proceeded to trial on the robbery charges.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial.

Applying the Villaroman framework, the court found that the circumstantial evidence, including discrepancies in physical descriptions and clothing, failed to negate the reasonable alternative inference that the accused came into possession of the stolen vehicle after the robbery.

The accused was acquitted of the robbery charges but convicted of the firearm offences.

The defendants were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking after a police officer pulled over their vehicle for a suspended license, discovered they were on conditions not to associate, arrested them, and found drugs during an inventory search of the car.

The defendants brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence.

The court found multiple violations of both defendants' rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention, unlawful questioning, failure to promptly advise of reasons for detention and right to counsel, and an unlawful inventory search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breaches were serious and significantly impacted the defendants' rights, warranting the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, the court imposed sentence for an offence involving penetration and a breach of trust where the offender was the complainant’s stepfather.

The court considered the principles in s. 718.2(e) and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Gladue and Ipeelee, including systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders, based on a detailed Gladue report.

Aggravating factors included the breach of parental trust and the devastating psychological impact on the victim, including a suicide attempt shortly after the assault.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, expressed remorse, sobriety since arrest, and prospects for rehabilitation.

A penitentiary sentence at the low end of the range was imposed together with mandatory ancillary orders.