Jeffery R. Richardson

The accused pled guilty to sexual assault and attempting to obstruct justice.

A joint submission on sentence was proposed, leaving only the issue of whether a SOIRA order should be imposed for determination.

The court reviewed the post-Ndhlovu amendments to the Criminal Code and the factors under s. 490.012(4).

Finding that the accused had not met the high threshold to establish that the impact of registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest, the court ordered him to comply with SOIRA for 20 years.

The accused was charged with breaching a release order that prohibited him from going to his ex-partner's residence.

After a scheduled visit with his children was cancelled, he drove to the residence, stayed on the public roadway, and placed cookies in the mailbox.

He argued that he relied on advice from the releasing police officer, who told him he would not be in breach as long as he stayed off the property.

The court found that accessing the mailbox constituted a breach of the condition.

The court rejected the excuse of de minimus non curat lex, noting it is generally unavailable for breaches of orders designed to protect victims of intimate partner violence.

However, the court found the accused successfully established the excuse of officially induced error, as he reasonably relied on the erroneous legal advice of the releasing officer.

A judicial stay of proceedings was entered.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in fentanyl and possession of proceeds of crime after being found with 28 grams of fentanyl and nearly $5,000.

Despite being released on bail to seek treatment, the accused failed to meaningfully engage in rehabilitation over an 18-month period.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for fentanyl trafficking.

After accounting for pre-sentence custody and onerous bail conditions, the accused was sentenced to two years in a penitentiary, at her request to access better treatment programs, followed by one year of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and breaching a release order.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found the accused to be an addict-trafficker who had made significant rehabilitative efforts, including abstaining from hard drugs, re-engaging in treatment, and complying with strict house arrest conditions for 18 months.

Emphasizing the accused's rehabilitation and the counterproductive nature of incarceration in this specific case, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

During cross-examination at trial, the accused revealed having reviewed personal notes prior to testifying.

The Crown sought production of these notes, arguing that any privilege was waived when the accused used them to refresh their memory.

The court held that the notes were protected by both litigation and solicitor-client privilege, as they were created for the dominant purpose of litigation and shared with counsel for legal advice.

The court concluded that the privilege was not waived, noting that the reference to the notes arose during cross-examination rather than examination-in-chief, and the potential prejudice to the accused outweighed the probative value of production.

The offender pleaded guilty to breaching probation and failing to appear in court, stemming from a 2008 theft conviction for which she had repeatedly failed to pay full restitution over 14 years.

Despite multiple prior breaches and probationary sentences aimed at facilitating repayment, the offender continued to delay and evade payment.

The court found that further probation or conditional sentences were inappropriate given the exhaustion of the court's patience and tools.

The offender was sentenced to 30 days' incarceration concurrent on each charge, and a stand-alone restitution order of $3,520 was issued.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including assault causing bodily harm, choking, and forcible confinement, following a prolonged and violent attack on his intimate partner.

The court considered the severe physical and psychological impact on the victim, the accused's extensive criminal record involving intimate partner violence, and the statutory aggravating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a total sentence of 60 months in custody after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a probation order, a hybrid offence.

After the Crown elected to proceed summarily, the accused brought an application to rescind the summons requirement to attend for fingerprinting under the Identification of Criminals Act, arguing the Act does not apply to summary conviction matters.

The court dismissed the application, noting that Parliament amended the Identification of Criminals Act in 2019 and 2022 to explicitly include hybrid offences regardless of the Crown's election.

The offender, a 39-year-old woman with no criminal record and an alcohol addiction, pleaded guilty to breaching a release order by consuming alcohol.

She had spent six days in pre-sentence custody.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of one additional day in custody, driven entirely by the practical necessity of securing police transport for the offender to retrieve her belongings from a remote detention centre.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest, finding that imposing a criminal record for an addiction-related breach under these circumstances was disproportionate.

The court granted an absolute discharge, highlighting the systemic failures and practical hardships caused by the closure of local jails and reliance on remote detention facilities.

The offender was found guilty of assaulting his wife and uttering threats to cause death to her and their three children.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and three years' probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are paramount in intimate partner violence cases.

Finding that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest given the multiple offences, the presence of children, and the offender's attempt to control his wife, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years' probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused was tried on allegations arising from a parent's physical intervention during a behavioural crisis involving a child with significant mental health and behavioural issues.

The court found the accused intentionally applied force without actual consent, but held the Crown had not disproved deemed consent arising from reasonable parental care and control in the circumstances.

The court further held that the force fell within s. 43 of the Criminal Code as minor, corrective, and restraining force used to secure medication and time-out compliance, notwithstanding some anger and frustration.

The defence of person under s. 34 failed because the immediate threat had passed, but the accused was acquitted on the basis of deemed consent and s. 43.

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.