Iryna Katharine Revutsky

The Crown brought a motion for a mental health assessment of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The assessment was sought under sections 672.11(b) and 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder under section 16(1).

The accused opposed the application, arguing his psychotic episodes were drug-induced.

The court, reviewing a psychiatric assessment, found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility on account of a mental disorder, noting that a diagnosis of "Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified" suggested a potential underlying mental health issue beyond drug-induced psychosis.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the assessment.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl after selling what he believed was heroin to undercover officers.

The court considered the presence of fentanyl as an aggravating factor but noted the lack of quantitative analysis regarding its concentration.

After applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre, the accused was sentenced to a further 9 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl.

The fentanyl charges arose after undercover purchases of heroin were analyzed and found to contain unknown amounts of fentanyl.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and 230 days pre-sentence custody credit (enhanced), followed by nine months incarceration concurrent on each count, for a total remaining custodial sentence of nine months, followed by two years probation.

The court considered the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking, the accused's prior criminal record, his age, his guilty plea, and mitigating factors including his support network and employment prospects.

A lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed, along with a DNA databank order.

The court addressed whether a mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for trafficking a firearm remained operative following Superior Court decisions declaring the provision unconstitutional.

The court held that a declaration of invalidity made by the Superior Court of Justice binds the Ontario Court of Justice and that the Crown must either appeal such a declaration or accept its effect.

The court concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to traffic a firearm no longer applies.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and related offences.

He brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay was calculated at over 44 months, with a net delay of over 30 months after deducting defence delay.

The court found the net delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied, as the delay was also unreasonable under the previous Morin framework.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and possession of cocaine.

The complainant had consumed intoxicants and had limited memory of events before awakening in the accused's room, where she described non-consensual vaginal intercourse, restraint, threats, and physical violence.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's denial, found his evidence internally inconsistent and inconsistent with surrounding evidence, and accepted corroborative evidence including witness observations, injuries, torn underwear, and DNA evidence.

The court held the complainant lacked the capacity to consent and that the restraint during the assault constituted unlawful confinement.

The 83-year-old offender was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and niece, committed between 1969 and 1997.

The abuse of the stepdaughter involved frequent, escalating sexual acts including full intercourse over five years while she was between the ages of four and nine.

The court found the offender's position of trust, the young age of the victims, the prolonged duration, and the devastating impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 45 days in a penitentiary.

Following a judge-alone trial on historical sexual offence charges, the court convicted the accused of five counts relating to prolonged intrafamilial abuse of one complainant between childhood ages four and nine, and one count relating to a separate indecent assault on a second complainant.

The court applied the R. v. W. (D.) framework and held that credibility could not be treated as a simple contest between the complainants and the accused.

It found both complainants credible notwithstanding lengthy delay in disclosure, and held that delay in reporting childhood sexual abuse within a family context was understandable and not indicative of fabrication.

The court rejected the defence theories of collusion and confusion with abuse committed by another family member, and found the accused's evidence unrealistic, evasive, and self-serving.

The accused brought two pre-trial applications in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

First, he sought production of complainants’ therapeutic and medical records under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.

Second, he sought permission under s. 276 to cross‑examine the complainants regarding prior sexual assaults committed by another individual, arguing it was relevant to testing the reliability of their memories.

The court held the defence failed to demonstrate that the requested third‑party records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, emphasizing the strong privacy interests in therapeutic records and the prohibition on speculative fishing expeditions.

However, limited cross‑examination regarding the other assaults was permitted solely to test memory and reliability, not to invoke the prohibited “twin myths.”

The accused was sentenced following convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, using an imitation firearm during robbery, and being masked with intent arising from two violent carjackings.

In both incidents, victims were abducted at gunpoint, confined in the trunks of their vehicles, threatened with death, and forced to reveal banking PINs while offenders withdrew funds from ATMs.

The court considered principles of denunciation and deterrence while balancing the accused’s youth, lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and personal circumstances including trauma and mental health concerns.

Parity with the sentence imposed on a co‑accused involved in multiple related carjackings was examined, along with sentencing jurisprudence regarding serious robberies.

The court determined that a lower sentence than the co‑accused was appropriate given the offender’s age, absence of record, and demonstrated remorse.