James Dudley Ronald Rice

The accused was charged on an eight-count indictment with offences relating to his daughter, including assault, uttering threats to cause death, sexual touching, sexual assault, and trafficking cocaine.

The Crown withdrew one count and invited acquittal on another.

The trial proceeded with evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W(D) test and found reasonable doubt on all remaining counts, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but determined that the Crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the remaining counts.

An application for an extension of time to appeal a criminal harassment conviction and sentence from April 14, 2022, was dismissed.

The applicant failed to satisfy the four-part test for extending time, specifically regarding a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the delay (over two years), and the merit of the proposed appeal.

The court found the appeal lacked merit, noting the applicant's guilty plea and the fairness of the original proceedings.

The accused, H.S., brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion was 43.14 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found 5 months of defence delay (due to waffling on a s. 276/278 Criminal Code application and preliminary inquiry availability) and 14 months of exceptional circumstances attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting court backlog.

After deductions, the net delay was calculated at 24.14 months, falling below the Jordan ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach.

The applicant was arrested for impaired operation after police discovered him apparently asleep behind the wheel of his father's car at a traffic light.

The applicant sought exclusion of breath sample results and police observations under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violation of his section 10(b) right to counsel.

The Crown conceded a section 10(b) Charter violation during the voir dire, specifically that police failed to establish they contacted the applicant's chosen counsel.

The court found the violation was moderately serious but ultimately admitted the breath sample evidence, finding that exclusion would undermine confidence in the justice system despite the Charter breach.

This is a sentencing decision for R.H., who pleaded guilty to sexual interference against his biological daughter, aged 7-11, between 2017 and 2021.

The incidents involved repeated sexual abuse and a significant breach of trust by the father.

Aggravating factors included the victim's young age, the egregious breach of trust, the repeated nature of the offending, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of a proven criminal record (treated as a first offender), good post-offence conduct, a personal history of depression and childhood sexual abuse, collateral consequences, and significant rehabilitative efforts, including therapy and a low risk of re-offending assessment.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or intermittent jail.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Friesen (emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences) and R. v. C.B. (allowing for consideration of mitigating factors and rehabilitation), determined that a conditional or intermittent sentence was unfit.

The judge imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence, noting it was a significant departure from typical sentences for such offences but justified by the numerous mitigating factors and the offender's rehabilitative progress.