J. David Crowe

The offender pleaded guilty to nine charges, including cocaine trafficking and multiple weapons offences, after selling cocaine to undercover operators and being found with a loaded SKS assault rifle and other prohibited weapons.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous heritage, lack of criminal record, and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, balanced against the significant aggravating factor of possessing a loaded firearm for 'insurance' during drug trafficking.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment, less 1 year credit for pre-trial custody, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender was convicted of assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, and mischief against his former domestic partner.

The sexual assaults involved non-consensual anal intercourse and intercourse while the victim was tied up.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of domestic violence and the profound impact on the victim against mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, compliance with bail, and Indigenous heritage.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to a total of 3.5 years in custody, along with a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused guilty of all three assault charges, rejecting his claims that the physical contact was accidental or unintentional.

On the sexual assault charge, the court found that the accused engaged in sexual activity with the complainant while she was asleep.

Applying the principle that advance consent to unconscious sex is invalid under the Criminal Code, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The court addressed a jurisdictional question regarding whether a judge sitting alone could hear and decide the issue of not criminally responsible (NCR) after a jury had returned a verdict of manslaughter and been discharged.

Both Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted that the judge had such jurisdiction, arguing it was supported by inherent court powers, trial fairness, and fundamental justice principles, and would avoid further delays and appeals.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it was supported in law and consistent with public interest and the principles of fundamental justice.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support and gain sole custody.

The responding party (former wife) sought increased child and spousal support, and an extension of spousal support beyond the previously ordered termination date.

The court dismissed the request to extend spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances and that the responding party was capable of working.

However, the court found the moving party's claimed business expenses were unreasonable and imputed his income at 50% of his gross professional income, ordering retroactive and ongoing increases to child and spousal support.