Jeff Manishen

The court sentenced Jeremy Wicker for sexual assault against his former spouse, Josephine Wicker, following a conviction after trial.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence and three years' probation, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed relevant case law, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a custodial sentence with probation, declining to make a SOIRA order.

The decision discusses the impact of domestic context, lack of remorse, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Margaret Park-Romain pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender's background, and sentencing principles, including the disparity between sentences for dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death.

The judge emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, imposing a three-year penitentiary sentence and a five-year driving prohibition, plus the period of imprisonment.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

The accused, a university professor, was charged with sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against a postgraduate student.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant consented to the physical acts.

The court found the complainant to be an unreliable witness due to significant internal inconsistencies, contradictions with prior statements to police and media, and stark contrasts with text messages exchanged with the accused at the time.

The court also rejected the Crown's arguments that consent was vitiated by an abuse of power or by the infliction of bodily harm, finding no evidence that the accused misused his position to extract consent or intended to cause bodily harm.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

The defence sought to call a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Collins, to provide expert opinion evidence on the neurobiological responses to stress and the impact of military training on decision-making.

The Crown objected, arguing the evidence was unnecessary and within the common knowledge of the jury.

The court applied the Mohan framework and the Supreme Court's guidance on self-defence from this very case, concluding that the expert evidence was necessary to help the jury assess the reasonableness of the accused's conduct and his role in the incident.

The application to admit the expert evidence was granted, subject to certain redactions.

The Crown sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from a forensic pathologist regarding the sequence of shots and the positioning of the deceased at the time of the shooting in a second degree murder trial.

The accused objected, arguing the opinion exceeded the expert's scope of expertise and would confuse the jury.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the Mohan framework and gatekeeper analysis, concluding the expert was properly qualified and the evidence was logically relevant and necessary.

The court ruled the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and admitted the expert opinion.

The defendant, S.L., was found guilty of possessing child pornography.

Prior to sentencing, S.L. challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for the offence.

The parties jointly submitted a conditional sentence of 10 months imprisonment.

The court found the mandatory minimum sentence violated s. 12 of the Charter, relying on R. v. John.

Considering the extreme nature of the child pornography, the defendant's first-offender status, low risk of re-offending, and severe medical condition (terminal cancer), the court acceded to the joint submission, imposing a 10-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including house arrest, curfew, internet prohibitions, and ancillary orders like DNA submission and Sex Offender Registration.

The defendant was charged with failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that a police officer lawfully demanded a breath sample into an approved screening device (ASD), which the defendant refused.

The defendant argued that the demand was invalid because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had alcohol in his body, and alternatively, that the demand was not made "forthwith" as required by statute.

The court found that on the totality of the circumstances, the officer objectively lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion, and alternatively, that the Crown failed to establish the demand was made forthwith.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with a breath demand, failing to provide assistance, and failing to exhibit required navigation lights under the Canada Shipping Act.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the defendant's rights under sections 9 and 10(b) were violated.

The defendant was arrested for a Canada Shipping Act violation and placed in handcuffs without justification.

The officer then questioned the defendant about alcohol consumption prior to providing the right to counsel, which was found to be a breach of section 10(b) rights.

The court excluded all evidence obtained in violation of these Charter rights under section 24(2).

The accused was convicted after trial of accessing, possessing, making, and making available child pornography.

The sentencing decision addresses the gravity of offences involving child sexual abuse material, including 125 images and 3 videos found on the accused's devices, as well as sadistic and depraved chat logs depicting discussions of violent sexual abuse of children.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles for child pornography offences.

The decision also addresses ancillary orders including sex offender registration and DNA sampling requirements.

The defendant, charged with possessing child pornography, brought pre-trial Charter applications to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

He argued the warrant lacked sufficient grounds and that his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter were violated when police obtained his cell phone password during the search.

The court found the search warrant was validly issued based on reasonable grounds.

The court also held the defendant was not psychologically detained during the search and had provided valid informed consent to unlock his phone.

The applications were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and two counts of making child pornography involving a seven-year-old victim.

The offences occurred on two separate dates following online communications with the victim's stepfather.

The offender participated in the sexual abuse of the child and recorded the incidents.

A global sentence of eight years imprisonment was imposed, less time served of 404 days, resulting in a net sentence of six years and four months.

Extensive ancillary orders were made including lifetime sex offender registration, firearms prohibition, and strict conditions regarding contact with minors and internet access.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against several young persons, including sexual interference, sexual assault, internet luring, and making and possessing child pornography.

The Crown applied for a long‑term offender designation under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed psychiatric risk assessment evidence and found the offender presented a moderate risk of sexual reoffending, with a pattern of grooming behaviour toward vulnerable adolescents.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria for a long‑term offender designation were satisfied and that risk could be managed in the community through supervision.

A global penitentiary sentence of seven years and one month was imposed along with a five‑year long‑term supervision order and several ancillary orders.

Two accused charged with first degree murder applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts of the shooting, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the accused’s vehicle to the victim.

The court found the Crown’s case to be overwhelming and concluded there was a high probability of conviction.

The proposed sureties, largely family members, were found inadequate to provide meaningful supervision or ensure compliance with bail conditions.

Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, including concerns about flight risk, potential interference with the administration of justice, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

The accused, a tow truck operator, was charged with criminal negligence causing death after parking his flatbed tow truck partially in the fast lane of Highway 403 to assist a stranded motorist.

A driver travelling in the fast lane struck the rear of the tow truck and was killed instantly.

The court assessed whether the accused's actions constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonable tow truck operator.

After considering expert testimony on towing industry standards and human factors, the court found that the accused's actions, while risky, fell within accepted industry practices and did not amount to a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and careless storage of ammunition.

The Crown sought imprisonment of four to six months followed by three years probation.

Defence counsel sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment.

The court imposed 90 days intermittent imprisonment (served weekends over approximately 30 weeks), three years probation with strict conditions including house arrest during the intermittent sentence, a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for 10 years, a 10-year prohibition on accessing children under 16, forfeiture of computer equipment and media, a $500 fine for the ammunition charge, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence against mitigating factors including the accused's otherwise good character, genuine remorse, engagement in counselling, guilty plea, and impact on his family.