Israel S. Gencher

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent following his conviction for sexual touching of a 13-year-old girl contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the respondent constituted a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of others based on a pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour showing a failure to restrain and a likelihood to inflict severe psychological damage, as well as a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his conduct.

The court rejected arguments for lesser measures, finding that community-based supervision and treatment could not adequately protect the public.

The respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, simple assault, and possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition.

All assaults were committed against his former common-law partner over a six-month period.

The defendant had an extensive criminal record spanning over twenty years, including prior convictions for violence, weapons offences, and breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of six years and thirty-four days, rejecting the defendant's submissions regarding rehabilitation prospects and emphasizing the primacy of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

The appellant was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

As an agent of Cryptometrics Canada, the appellant agreed with other employees to bribe Indian officials to secure a multi-million dollar Air India contract.

The appeal raised three main grounds: lack of territorial jurisdiction, misinterpretation of the word "agree" in the statute, and misapplication of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The accused, Floyd Herbert, was found guilty of eight counts including sexual assault, assault, threatening bodily harm, uttering a threat to kill an animal, forcible entry, and three counts of failing to abide by conditions of recognizance.

The offences involved a violent sexual assault and forcible entry into the 62-year-old complainant's apartment.

The court considered the accused's extensive criminal record, cocaine addiction, and mitigating factors such as remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Applying principles of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, the court sentenced the accused to a total of five years in prison, with credit for two years of pre-trial custody, leaving three years to serve.

Additional orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, operation over 80 mg/100 ml of blood alcohol, dangerous driving, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application challenging the validity of the breath demand and the admissibility of evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving, operation over 80, and dangerous driving, but acquitted him of failing to remain at the scene.

The court found that while the initial breath demand by the arresting officer was not read as soon as practicable, the subsequent demand by the qualified technician was valid and properly obtained.