Jacqueline V. Loignon

Following a trial where the offender was found guilty of sexual assault involving penetrative intercourse, the court delivered its sentencing decision.

The victim suffered profound and lasting physical, emotional, psychological, and financial harm.

The Crown sought a minimum of 3 years imprisonment, while the defence proposed a 24-month conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the violent and invasive nature of the crime and numerous aggravating factors.

Despite the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and potential immigration consequences, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders for DNA, a 10-year weapon prohibition, and a 25-year SOIRA order.

The Crown sought to adduce four out-of-court statements made by the complainant (CL), an 86-year-old victim of alleged sexual assault, pursuant to the principled exception to the hearsay rule under R. v. Khelawon.

The complainant was not present at trial.

The Crown argued necessity based on the complainant's anxiety, depression, fear of the accused, and reluctance to leave her apartment.

The defence conceded reliability but challenged necessity.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish necessity on the evidence presented, noting the absence of expert evidence regarding the effects of testifying, the availability of testimonial aids to address the complainant's concerns, and the complainant's prior acceptance of the need to testify.

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied under section 278.93 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant and to use records of communications between them.

The application concerned two counts of sexual assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence of prior sexual activity constituted impermissible twin-myth reasoning and was not capable of being admissible.

The court held that the evidence did not address how consent was communicated and therefore could not support a defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

Additionally, regarding the allegation involving digital penetration while the complainant was asleep, the court found the evidence irrelevant to consent as an unconscious person cannot provide the required affirmative consent.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, as well as criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, arising from a motor vehicle collision on June 18, 2017.

Following a confrontation at a quarry where the accused was threatened, he fled in a vehicle with three young women as passengers.

While driving at speeds up to 183 km/h on an 80 km/h rural highway, he ignored repeated pleas from his passengers to slow down.

The vehicle crashed 2.7 km from the quarry, killing two passengers and injuring a third.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, rejecting his argument that his conduct was justified by a reasonable belief in imminent peril, as the threat had passed and he had been informed by his passengers that no one was following them.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, one count of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of assault with a weapon.

He applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the laying of the information to trial was 18 months and two weeks, exceeding the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown offered earlier trial dates in January 2018, but defence counsel did not respond.

The court found that while the Crown's initial email was an appropriate step, it was insufficient and the Crown failed to take further reasonable available steps, such as bringing an application in Certificate of Readiness court to canvass earlier dates.

The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the delay and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide an Intoxilyzer sample and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The court examined multiple Charter breach allegations including sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the Alcohol Screening Device demand was made forthwith despite a 5-6 minute delay, that reasonable and probable grounds existed for arrest based on the ASD fail result, and that there was no arbitrary detention.

However, the court found a serious breach of the right to counsel at the police station where the accused's waiver was not properly established due to altered police notes and insufficient documentation.

The evidence of refusal was excluded as a remedy.

The applicants were charged with drug offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Criminal Code arising from the alleged sale of fentanyl.

They sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who swore the Information to Obtain in support of a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The court addressed standing issues for one applicant and applied the Dawson/Garofoli framework to determine which proposed cross-examination questions would be permitted.

The court balanced the narrow scope of cross-examination at a preliminary inquiry against the need to protect confidential informer privilege and the requirement for full and frank disclosure by the affiant.

The accused was charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice by failing to appear as a witness for a murder trial, contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had been an eyewitness to a killing and was subpoenaed to testify at the retrial of the accused murderer.

The accused left Canada and travelled internationally, deliberately avoiding his obligation to testify.

The Crown established that the accused had been properly served with a subpoena and had knowledge of his obligation to appear.

The sole issue at trial was whether the actus reus of the offence had been proven.

The court found that despite clerical errors on the subpoena, it was valid and the accused had a legal duty to attend court.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with theft over $5,000 from a Canadian Tire store between April 1 and August 31, 2015.

A voir-dire was held to determine the voluntariness of statements made to an internal investigator for Canadian Tire.

The court found that the investigator was a person in authority and that the Crown failed to establish that the statements were free and voluntary.

The statements were ruled inadmissible due to inadequate warnings regarding the right to counsel and caution, insufficient record-keeping of the oral statement, and evidence suggesting inducements were offered.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, and breach of probation arising from an incident on August 16, 2016.

The Crown alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant in a shower room at an apartment after she had been drinking heavily.

The accused's defence was that the complainant consented to sexual intercourse in exchange for drugs.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, detailed, and supported by physical evidence and circumstantial evidence.

The accused's evidence was riddled with internal and external inconsistencies.

The court convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of section 10(a), determined the ASD demand was made forthwith despite a six-minute delay, found the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, but found a violation of section 9 regarding arbitrary detention due to overholding without consideration of alternatives to detention.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings and admitted the Intoxilyzer readings, finding the accused guilty of the charge.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising from an incident on October 28, 2011, where he struck the complainant with a golf club.

The central issue was whether the accused's use of force was justified as self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable perception of force or threat of force, acted with a defensive purpose, and that his response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

Three offenders were convicted following a lengthy trial of firearms trafficking offences arising from Project Lancaster, a two-year investigation into illegal firearms and drug trafficking.

All three were convicted of various firearms offences involving restricted or prohibited handguns.

Two offenders were also convicted of drug trafficking offences.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years for the firearms offences, with an additional 7 months consecutive for drug offences where applicable.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentence under section 99 of the Criminal Code, finding that the appropriate sentences exceeded the three-year minimum.

Enhanced credit for pre-trial custody was granted, resulting in net sentences ranging from approximately 4.7 years to 5 years and 7 months.

Three accused were tried on 42 counts involving firearms trafficking, drug trafficking, and related offences arising from Project Lancaster, a two-year investigation spanning January 2009 to March 2011.

The Crown relied heavily on wiretap evidence, text messages, surveillance, undercover operations, and expert testimony regarding firearms and drug terminology.

The court convicted the accused on various counts including offering to transfer firearms, conspiracy to traffic marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking purposes, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Key issues included the interpretation of coded language in communications, the definition of "firearm" without physical recovery, and the elements of conspiracy in buy-sell drug transactions.

The applicants brought applications pursuant to Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenging the validity of a production order directed to Telus, two Part VI wiretap authorizations, and search warrants executed in connection with Project Lancaster, an investigation into firearms trafficking and drug offences in Ottawa.

The applicants challenged the type of order used to obtain text messages, the sufficiency of grounds for the authorizations and warrants, and sought exclusion of evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that a production order was the appropriate mechanism for obtaining stored text messages, that the authorizing judges had sufficient grounds based on reliable and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the search warrants were properly issued.

The accused brought an application to exclude intercepted communications obtained pursuant to two Part VI authorizations under the Criminal Code and to exclude evidence obtained from two search warrants issued under section 487 of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of grounds, investigative necessity, and alleged bias on the part of the issuing Justice of the Peace.

The court found that the first authorization had sufficient grounds and that investigative necessity was established.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias due to a familial and commercial connection between the accused and the issuing Justice of the Peace.

While the search warrants were found to be invalid due to this bias, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would not serve the interests of justice given the good faith of police and the serious nature of the charges.