Jayme Isador Lesperance

The accused was charged with sexual assault against the complainant on November 25, 2023.

The Crown alleged that the accused forcibly sexually assaulted the complainant in a bathroom at the residence of a third party.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed the assault did not occur.

The trial proceeded on the basis of credibility assessments and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimony regarding the complainant's immediate post-assault demeanor, and the accused's suspicious conduct and flight from the scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as internally and externally inconsistent, and found that the Crown proved all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses a motion for directions regarding the transportation and housing of an in-custody accused, Matthew McQuarrie, during his murder trial in Owen Sound, Ontario.

The court details the significant logistical and fairness challenges posed by the closure of the local jail, resulting in daily lengthy and inhumane commutes from the Central North Correctional Centre.

The ruling describes the evidence on transportation, alternate housing, and access to disclosure, and ultimately orders exceptional accommodations to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial, including direct transport, access to disclosure, and use of technology.

This decision concerns a summary conviction appeal by Patrick Godin from his conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third prong of the W.(D.) analysis, specifically by not considering the totality of the evidence, including contradictions between the complainant’s testimony and that of other witnesses.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate, addressed the relevant issues, and gave proper deference to credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court sentenced Ryan Turgeon, a former high school teacher, to three years’ imprisonment for making sexually explicit materials available to a child and for child luring, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The decision reviews the facts, the positions of the parties, the impact on the victim, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. M.V. to situate the sentence within the evolving range for such offences, emphasizing the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Matthew McQuarrie, charged with first-degree murder, discharged his third lawyer and intended to self-represent.

The Crown applied for orders appointing amicus curiae and counsel under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the deceased's parents.

The court granted both applications, appointing the accused's former counsel, Anthony Bryant, as amicus with an expanded adversarial mandate, and counsel under s. 486.3 for specific cross-examinations, with the possibility of expansion.

The decision addressed the suitability of former counsel as amicus and the scope of their duties, emphasizing the need to protect the court process and ensure trial fairness given the accused's behaviour and the complexity of the case, while avoiding trial adjournment.

The accused, Frederick Leon, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for second-degree murder due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, defence delay, and considering exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on trial scheduling.

The court found that after deducting defence delay and pandemic-related delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 9(1) of the Canada Evidence Act seeking leave to cross-examine its own witness, Keima Davis-Baynes, due to significant inconsistencies between her trial evidence and prior statements to police and at a preliminary inquiry.

The defence opposed the application.

The court found the witness to be adverse to the Crown's position and, after considering the probative value and potential prejudicial effect, granted the Crown leave to cross-examine the witness on the inconsistencies, subject to specific restrictions to prevent the jury from misusing the evidence to infer the accused's credibility or guilt.

The Crown brought an application to admit a police interview of a recanting witness, Ms. Keima Davis-Baynes, for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The accused did not oppose the application.

The court found that the criteria of necessity (due to the witness's recantation) and threshold reliability (established by procedural reliability, including a video-recorded, sworn statement, and the witness's availability for cross-examination at trial, and substantive reliability through corroborating independent evidence) were met.

The court also determined that the prejudicial effect of the statement did not outweigh its probative value.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused, Kahli Johnson-Phillips and Shanice Wynter, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of charges for first-degree murder and other offences due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay, and considering exceptional circumstances, particularly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that after deducting defence-attributable delays and pandemic-related delays, the net delay for both accused was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also determined the case to be particularly complex, which would justify a delay above the ceiling if necessary.

Consequently, the s. 11(b) applications were dismissed.

The defence applied under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting specific challenge for cause questions, arguing a reasonable possibility of juror partiality.

The issues not on consent were the need for a question regarding partiality towards police (a Barnes question) and who would ask the questions.

The court allowed the police partiality question, finding that evidence of systemic racism within the Peel Regional Police Service and related media coverage created a realistic potential for partiality among prospective jurors.

The court also ruled that the trial judge, rather than counsel, would ask all challenge for cause questions to emphasize the court's impartiality and the importance of a fair trial.

The accused, Shanice Wynter, brought an application for an order allowing her counsel to make an opening address immediately after the Crown’s opening address in a joint criminal trial for first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown opposed, and the co-accused did not join the application.

The court, exercising judicial discretion, determined that an early defence opening is only permissible in special or exceptional circumstances.

Considering factors such as the trial's length and complexity, but also the "all or none" approach for co-accused in joint trials, the court dismissed the application.

It concluded that special or exceptional circumstances were not present and that following the procedure outlined in s. 651 of the Criminal Code was the fairest course of action.

The defendant, Ruben Aguiar, was charged with assaulting his son, J., who had a broken collarbone.

The defendant argued his actions were justified under s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the use of reasonable force for correction.

The court found that while the defendant's actions were partly motivated by a desire to protect the child, the force used (grabbing the child by the face/head, lifting him, and dropping him) was not reasonable, especially given the child's pre-existing injury.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the child was not capable of understanding the correction at the time.

Consequently, s. 43 did not apply, and the defendant was found guilty of assault.

The offender, Kathy Jackson, pleaded guilty to conspiring to obstruct justice.

The conspiracy involved attempts to hide evidence (a gun) and prevent a victim from testifying in a robbery case involving her son.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, emphasizing that interference with the justice system is a serious attack on the rule of law, and that denunciation and deterrence are paramount.

Despite mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior record, and community support, the court rejected a conditional discharge or suspended sentence.

The court found that such lenient sentences would be contrary to the public interest and insufficient to achieve sentencing principles, particularly given the ongoing nature of the conspiracy.

The accused was sentenced on two indictments for multiple Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and Criminal Code offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, as well as firearms offences, proceeds of crime, and breaches of prohibition orders and recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, quantities of drugs, and commission of offences while on bail.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea for the second indictment and an apology.

The court applied the totality principle to arrive at a global sentence of 12 years, reduced by pre-sentence custody and a one-year credit for the harsher conditions of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dia Eddin Hanan was sentenced for manslaughter, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and discharge of a firearm with intent to wound, following a jury trial where he was acquitted of second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The court made specific factual findings for sentencing, including that Hanan brought the gun, initiated the shooting, and shot one victim in the back as he fled, causing permanent paralysis.

The global sentence imposed was 15 years imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 7 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences, which resulted in one death and one lifetime paralysis.

The appellant, Patrick Flynn, appealed his conviction for an offence under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code ("blowing over").

At trial, the judge found two Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, and 10(b)) but admitted the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal advanced three grounds: error regarding the "as soon as practicable" requirement for breath samples, failure to prove the first sample was within two hours, and error in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the s. 24(2) balancing test, which concluded that the minimal nature of the Charter breaches did not warrant exclusion of the breath samples.

The applicant sought to vary his probation order to remove the non-contact condition with his girlfriend, J.R., and his children, citing rehabilitation and J.R.'s support.

The Crown opposed, highlighting the applicant's history of domestic violence, breaches of the order, and ambivalence towards alcohol counselling.

The court acknowledged the applicant's efforts but noted ongoing concerns and the lack of complete information due to concurrent family court proceedings where the children had been removed from J.R.'s custody and the applicant was denied supervised access.

The court emphasized the need for a holistic approach to domestic violence cases across criminal and family justice systems.