Jeffery R. Richardson

The accused pleaded guilty to mischief over $5,000 by discharging two shotgun rounds into a neighbour's vehicle and possessing firearms without a licence.

The offence occurred when the accused, intoxicated and frustrated by a car alarm disrupting his sleep, fired at his neighbour's F-150 truck.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, a weapons prohibition for ten years, and forfeiture of the shotgun, balancing significant aggravating factors (unlicensed firearms, discharge in a semi-urban setting while intoxicated, substantial property damage) against substantial mitigating factors (guilty plea, cooperation with police, no criminal record, gainful employment, and significant rehabilitative efforts including anger management and substance abuse counselling).

The accused was sentenced for intimidating a justice system participant (a provincial prosecutor) under section 423.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused sent threatening emails and made phone calls to the prosecutor and his wife at their home address in the early morning hours after the prosecutor declined to resolve the accused's Highway Traffic Act charges on favorable terms.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with 12 months of house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the offence was serious and pre-meditated, the accused's untreated schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and related mental health issues materially contributed to the commission of the offence and warranted a reduction from the baseline custodial sentence of 18 months.

The offender was sentenced to a two-year-less-one-day conditional sentence with house arrest and electronic monitoring for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine.

He breached the conditional sentence by removing his GPS monitor and traveling over 360 kilometers from Scarborough to Pembroke, where he was found during a police search warrant execution.

The court found the breach to be a total repudiation of the conditional sentence order and collapsed the entire remaining sentence, requiring the offender to serve 420 days in custody before resuming his three-year probation order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a motel in Deep River.

The complainant and her friend met the accused and his co-worker at a bar, and later returned to the accused's motel room.

While in the room, the accused suddenly pushed the complainant onto the bed and removed her pants without her consent.

The complainant's friend intervened immediately.

The central issue was whether the complainant communicated consent to the removal of her pants.

The court found that friendly conduct, conversation, physical proximity, and presence in the motel room did not constitute communicated consent to sexual touching.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

Christa Hier pleaded guilty to possession of 118 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice imposed a sentence balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, resulting in a total sentence of six and a half years: 12 months credited as served with 18 months credit, plus five years custody.

The decision highlights the significant community impact of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke, the offender’s history of addiction and trauma, and the importance of individualized sentencing that considers both public safety and rehabilitative potential.

This decision addresses whether a Crown witness, Constable Emmanuelle Boucher, may testify remotely via videoconference at trial under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Ashley Russell, faces a charge of operating a conveyance while prohibited.

The Court balanced factors including the witness's location, costs, the nature of the offence, and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court found that the presumption of in-person testimony was overcome, permitting remote testimony by Zoom with conditions to ensure fairness and integrity of the evidence.

This decision addresses the validity of a roadside demand for a breath sample under section 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Andrew Ackers, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The impaired driving charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The key issue was whether the police had reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample.

The court found that despite some procedural missteps and lack of direct communication of all grounds between officers, the totality of objectively discernable facts—including the vehicle accident, the accused fleeing the scene, witness reports of intoxication, and the accused’s glossy eyes—constituted reasonable suspicion.

The accused was found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

This decision addresses the sentencing of J.V. for luring contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and a neurodevelopmental disorder, pleaded guilty and sought a conditional sentence due to his medical vulnerabilities and diminished moral blameworthiness linked to his medication and cognitive impairments.

The Court balanced aggravating factors, including the sending of explicit images and intent to meet a purported minor, against mitigating factors such as remorse, lack of prior relevant record, and significant health issues.

The Court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest and probation, alongside lifetime prohibitions and registration orders, emphasizing individualized sentencing and the accommodation of medical needs.

This case involves a sexual assault charge against J.T., a member of the Canadian Forces, alleged to have occurred in 2012 at Garrison Petawawa.

The complainant, G.G., also a military member, testified about the assault and subsequent events, including delayed reporting due to military hierarchy and fear of reprisals.

The case turned on credibility and reliability assessments of the witnesses, including conflicting evidence from military personnel and civilian employees.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and irreconcilable differences in the complainant's evidence compared to other witnesses, and issues with the reliability of supporting testimony.

Despite not believing the accused's evidence, the judge found reasonable doubt due to these inconsistencies and acquitted J.T.

This decision involves a complex sentencing of K.T. for multiple sexual offences including criminal harassment, indecent communications, child pornography, luring, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16.

The court carefully considered the offender’s mental health, intellectual functioning, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The judge imposed consecutive sentences as mandated by the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This decision addresses the sentencing of J.P., a 31-year-old man convicted of sexual interference with a vulnerable 14-year-old Indigenous, Autistic girl under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and Xanax (which he supplied).

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal and substance abuse history, the victim's vulnerability, and relevant sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

The judge imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, a ten-year firearm prohibition, DNA order, and multiple lifetime prohibitions related to contact and employment involving minors.

The decision also discusses the application of the "mistake of age" defence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing sexual offences against children.

This case concerns the sentencing of a 68-year-old man, B.M., who pled guilty to making child pornography and voyeurism by secretly recording two neighbour boys showering.

The offences occurred over several years and involved significant planning and breach of trust.

The court considered extensive victim impact statements, the accused’s personal and medical background, and expert reports including a section 21 Mental Health Act report.

Despite B.M.’s remorse, exemplary life, and low risk to reoffend, the court imposed a global sentence of three years (two years concurrent for making child pornography and one year consecutive for voyeurism), emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in child sexual offences.

The decision also includes lifetime prohibitions on contact with victims and related persons, DNA and firearm orders, and a 20-year sex offender registration requirement.

This decision addresses whether a conditional discharge is appropriate for two counts of assault against a former intimate partner.

The accused, D.M., was found guilty of two assaults but acquitted of more serious charges involving weapons.

The Court carefully considered the facts, the accused’s background, completion of a Partner Assault Response Program, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence in intimate partner violence cases.

The Court concluded that a conditional discharge with two years probation and counselling was appropriate, emphasizing the individualized nature of sentencing and the importance of balancing public interest with rehabilitation.

This decision addresses sentencing for Jeremy Brown, a 25-year-old with no prior record at the time of offences, convicted of possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, carrying a concealed weapon, careless storage, and knowledge of unauthorized possession.

The case is complicated by Brown’s prior manslaughter conviction involving a firearm, for which he received an 11-year sentence.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the altered serial number, proximity to vulnerable persons, and the dangerous nature of the firearm possession, alongside mitigating factors such as Brown’s age, health condition (sickle cell disease), and social context as a Black man.

The Court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totaling 21 months, to be served consecutively to the manslaughter sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This decision addresses sentencing for a sexual offence involving under-the-clothes digital touching of an 11-year-old girl by her stepfather.

The accused was found guilty after rejecting his defence of lack of intention and NCR-MD.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, including 15 months of house arrest, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing analysis considered the accused's Indigenous background, mental and physical health issues, low risk of reoffence, and the serious victim impact.

The court carefully weighed the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the abuse of trust, and the availability of conditional sentences post-R. v. Friesen and related jurisprudence.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced J.S. for assault and sexual assault of his 14-year-old step-sister, JM.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, Indigenous background, and the Gladue report, balancing aggravating factors such as abuse of trust and the nature of the sexual offence with mitigating factors including the offender's willingness to engage in treatment and community support.

The court imposed a two-year less one day conditional sentence with 12 months of house arrest and electronic monitoring, concurrent probation, and various ancillary orders, emphasizing rehabilitation and long-term supervision over incarceration.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted J.P. of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 14-year-old complainant, KJ.

The accused was found not guilty of administering a noxious substance.

The case involved complex issues of consent, intoxication, and mistake of age.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of witnesses, including the complainant, her mother, friends, and the accused.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, the judge found her credible on the key issue of non-consent.

The accused’s claim of honest but mistaken belief in consent and age was rejected due to recklessness in failing to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

The court also held that the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent.

The accused’s failure to ensure explicit consent to sexual intercourse was critical to the conviction.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate penalty for K.L., convicted of sexual offences against a minor, JB, who was a Grade 7 student intern at the radio station where K.L. worked.

The offences involved kissing and sexual intercourse when JB was 12 or 13 years old, and K.L. was in his early 30s.

The judge considered the significant breach of trust, the age difference, the victim impact, and K.L.'s lack of remorse and insight.

Despite concerns about possible cognitive deficits and a history of trauma, the court found no diminished moral blameworthiness.

The sentence imposed was five years imprisonment, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a SOIRA order, and a lifetime prohibition on contact with minors under 16.

The decision emphasizes the principle of proportionality in sentencing sexual offences against children, referencing key Supreme Court of Canada authorities.

The accused, Jeremy Brown, brought a Charter application to exclude a firearm found during his detention, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded a 10(a) breach but argued no other breaches occurred and that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2).

The court found no breach of section 8 or 10(b), and despite the conceded 10(a) breach, determined that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the charges, the reliability of the evidence, and the exigent circumstances faced by the police.

The Charter application was dismissed.

AL pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a child (KB, aged 9-11).

The offence involved over-the-clothes touching, inviting the victim to touch his penis, and masturbating in her presence.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the nature of the offence against a child, abuse of trust, and AL's high risk of reoffence due to diagnosed pedophilia, fetishism, hypersexuality, cannabis use disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anger issues.

Mitigating factors included his early guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, military service with PTSD, intellectual disability, and adverse childhood experiences.

While acknowledging diminished moral blameworthiness due to his background, the court prioritized public protection and found a conditional sentence insufficient.

AL was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders including DNA, firearms prohibition, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the victim.