Jeffery R. Richardson

This criminal trial concerned Matthew Miller, who was charged with assaulting Ryan James Taylor and breaching an undertaking to Karen Venasse.

A charge of uttering a threat was withdrawn mid-trial.

The incident, a physical altercation at a gas station, stemmed from a history of animosity and a family court dispute between Miller and Venasse, who is the ex-partner of Miller and current partner of Taylor.

The court heavily relied on video surveillance footage, which contradicted the testimonies of both the complainant and the accused regarding the initiation of the physical altercation.

The judge found the testimonies of the accused and complainants largely incredible, except where corroborated by the objective video evidence.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and assessing the circumstantial evidence holistically, the court concluded that Miller intentionally planned and executed the assault on Taylor.

Matthew Miller was found guilty of assaulting Ryan James Taylor and breaching an undertaking.

The accused, MG, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against KM, alleged to have occurred in June 2007 and April 2008.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) formulation.

While the judge found parts of the accused's testimony incredible, the complainant's evidence was deemed unreliable due to the significant passage of time and her conscious efforts to suppress memories, leading to a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, MG was found not guilty on both counts.

A young person, QF, was charged with assault.

The complainant, MH, testified that QF assaulted her after a consensual kiss.

QF denied the incident and presented alibi evidence, including surveillance footage.

The court found QF's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies.

However, despite finding MH's account generally truthful, the court found a reasonable doubt due to "collusion and tainting" between MH and another complainant (ST), as MH admitted her motivation to report was to "back up" ST.

The court also strongly rejected the defence's argument that prior consent to minor touching implied consent to further, non-consensual acts.

Ultimately, QF was acquitted due to reasonable doubt arising from the tainting of the complainant's evidence.

This judgment concerns the sentencing of an accused (JG) convicted of sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court applied the sentencing range established in R. v. AJK, which sets a starting point of at least three years in the penitentiary for penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing that an intimate partner relationship is an aggravating factor due to breach of trust.

Despite numerous mitigating factors, including JG being a first-time offender with strong community support and a low risk of reoffence, the court found no "highly mitigating factor" sufficient to depart below the three-year threshold.

Consequently, JG was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary.

Additionally, the court declined to issue a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, finding that JG's low risk of reoffence and the disproportionate impact of such an order on him outweighed the public interest in registration, in accordance with the amended Criminal Code provisions post-R. v. Ndlovu.

The accused, NL, was charged with sexual assault and mischief against his estranged wife, KL.

The incidents occurred in the matrimonial home following a period of marital discord and separation.

KL alleged that NL sexually assaulted her by physically restraining her, attempting to kiss her, grabbing her breasts and buttocks, and exposing himself while demanding sexual acts.

She also alleged that NL intentionally damaged property in the basement by urinating, spilling beer, and smearing applesauce.

NL denied the allegations, claiming a conspiracy between KL and the investigating officer.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis, finding NL's testimony incredible due to numerous inconsistencies and lies, including his false claims about the wedding rings and the property damage.

The court found KL's testimony credible and reliable, noting her initial reluctance to lay charges and her uninformed understanding of sexual assault law.

NL was found guilty on both counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a child witness's videotaped statement under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the witness's failure to remember giving the statement is fatal to its admission.

The court found that it is not, interpreting "adopts" in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. F. (C.C.).

The decision emphasizes that the child's attestation of truthfulness at the time the statement was made, coupled with other reliability factors, is sufficient for adoption, even without a present memory of the events or the act of making the statement.

The legislative purpose of preserving early accounts from vulnerable witnesses is highlighted.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his former partner.

Following a voir dire, the court admitted statements made by the accused to police upon his arrest, finding them voluntary despite the absence of a secondary caution.

The court also admitted text messages between the complainant and a friend to rebut allegations of recent fabrication and as narrative circumstantial evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's denials, accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent to the sexual acts, and entered findings of guilt on both counts.

The accused, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, was charged with sexual assault in the military justice system.

After nine months, the military charges were withdrawn and new charges were laid in the civilian court (Ontario Court of Justice), purportedly in response to the Arbour Report's interim recommendation.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The court found that the total net delay was approximately 22 months, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that the transfer from the military system and the COVID-19 backlog constituted exceptional circumstances, noting a lack of evidence and a failure by the Crown to take reasonable steps to mitigate the delay.

The application was granted, and the proceedings were stayed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, breach of undertaking, and criminal harassment.

The court first dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application, finding that the 22.5-month delay was reasonable due to the discrete event of the complainant's high-risk pregnancy.

During the trial, the court ruled that defence counsel's notes from a witness interview remained protected by litigation privilege because the witness did not use them to refresh her memory.

Ultimately, the court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that the complainant's evidence, while credible, was unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and memory gaps caused by trauma, raising a reasonable doubt.

JG was charged with one count of sexual assault against his former spouse, CG, occurring between February 21 and 23, 2021.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) framework.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory of events and prior statements to police.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent to the sexual activity, finding the accused's actions reckless and willfully blind.

The court rejected the defence's argument that the complainant's initial characterization of the events as "manipulation" or delay in reporting negated the lack of consent, noting that such reactions can be common in close relationships.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, Donald Waldorf, brought an application to strike his guilty plea to multiple criminal charges, including assault and forcible confinement.

The core issue was whether his plea was informed, specifically regarding the Crown's potential application for a Dangerous Offender or Long Term Offender (DO/LTO) designation, which was not clearly communicated to him or his counsel prior to the plea.

The court found that while the accused was single-minded in seeking early release and had cognitive deficits, his counsel was also unaware of the Crown's DO/LTO intention.

The court ruled that it is patently unfair for an accused to enter a plea without clear, unequivocal advance knowledge of potential indeterminate detention.

The application to strike the plea was granted, as the plea was not informed.

The accused, a 38-year-old Canadian military member, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, noting the small collection size but also the accused's habit of deleting material, suggesting a higher volume of access.

Aggravating factors included the depraved nature of the material and the accused's admitted breaches of release conditions.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, low risk of re-offence, a difficult childhood, and strong family support.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing principles for child pornography offences, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant a conditional sentence.

A nine-month custodial sentence was imposed, along with an 18-month probation order, DNA order, 20-year SOIRA registration, a 10-year Section 161 order (with specific terms regarding internet use and contact with persons under 16, but no park/playground prohibition), and an order of forfeiture for seized items.

The accused, Luigi Haaima, applied to attend his summary conviction trial by videoconference, citing his residence being an hour and a half from Pembroke and lack of transportation.

The court reviewed the 2022 amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill S-4) concerning virtual appearances, specifically sections 715.21, 715.23, 715.232, and 715.24, and section 800.

The court interpreted section 715.232, which appears to require consent for non-custodial accused in summary conviction matters, as allowing for residual judicial discretion, especially when read in conjunction with section 800 (permitting trials in absentia).

The court outlined various factors from section 715.23 that must be evidenced to justify a virtual appearance, including personal circumstances, costs, suitability of location, fair hearing rights, and offence seriousness.

The application was dismissed because it only provided bare assertions regarding distance and transportation, which was deemed insufficient without further evidence addressing the enumerated factors.

Leave was granted to file a more comprehensive application.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a 39-year-old man convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his 67-year-old uncle.

The unprovoked attack resulted in significant injuries, including two knocked-out teeth and ongoing anxiety for the victim.

The court considered the Crown's request for a custodial sentence (4-6 months) and the defence's proposal for a conditional sentence.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the victim's vulnerability, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence (four months house arrest), three years probation, restitution, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing the offender's lack of prior record, pro-social behaviour, and the principles of restraint and rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a complainant under 14 years of age.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, addressing inconsistencies in her testimony and the impact of late disclosure and non-avoidant behavior.

The court found that the complainant was unable to legally consent to sexual activity and that the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, negating the defense of mistaken belief in age.

The accused was found guilty of both sexual interference and sexual assault.

The accused, RP, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, DJ, alleged that RP sexually assaulted her when she was 10 years old, an incident she claims to have repressed and later recovered memory of.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, noting the significant passage of time and potential for memory distortion due to family acrimony.

While finding the complainant credible, the court found her evidence unreliable due to the passage of time and external influences, which raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of Assault Cause Bodily Harm against the defendant, Troy Riopelle, for an incident involving his uncle, Terry Bandy, where Bandy lost two teeth.

Riopelle claimed self-defence, while Bandy alleged an unprovoked attack stemming from a long-standing family dispute over a mobile home park.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The judge disbelieved the defendant's testimony, finding it contrived and paradoxical, and accepted the complainant's and an eyewitness's accounts, despite some inconsistencies in the latter.

The court found the defendant guilty, concluding that the assault was an intentional act motivated by the family feud and the defendant's anger over the complainant's presence in the park.

The court considered the appropriate sentence for T.A., a 70-year-old offender who pleaded guilty to sexual interference against his step-granddaughter, involving over-the-clothes touching.

T.A. had a prior sexual assault conviction and was assessed as low risk to reoffend.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence (3 years), while the Defence argued for a maximum reformatory sentence (2 years less a day) followed by maximum probation (3 years) to allow T.A. to access treatment at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), which is unavailable in federal penitentiaries for low-risk offenders.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Friesen regarding increased sentences for child sexual offenses, ultimately imposed the reformatory sentence to prioritize rehabilitation and a longer period of supervision, finding it equivalent in protective effect to a mid-single digit penitentiary term.

The defendant, C.M., was charged with forcible confinement and two counts of assault by choking.

The Crown did not proceed with the forcible confinement charge.

The case involved assessing credibility, applying W.(D.) principles, and discussing elements of assault by choking (s. 267(c) Criminal Code), defence of property (s. 35 Criminal Code), and the de minimus non curat lex defence in a domestic violence context.

The court found C.M. not guilty of assault by choking but guilty of common assault for the first incident on the stairway, rejecting the de minimus defence due to the domestic violence context and the child witness.

For the second incident in the bedroom, the court found C.M.'s actions were justified under the defence of property, leading to an acquittal on the second assault by choking charge.

The accused, Garrett Beal, was convicted of sexual assault against an intoxicated woman in her home.

This decision concerns the appropriate sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's intoxication, the assault occurring in her home with her child present, the intrusive nature of the assault, and the physical injury sustained.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of criminal record, good character, strong support system, and employment prospects.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as disproportionate and too lenient, and also rejected the Crown's request for a 3.5-4 year penitentiary sentence as too harsh.

The court imposed a sentence of 24 months in the penitentiary, followed by three years probation, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and a twenty-year Sex Offender Information Act order.