J. Gilbert

The court sentenced Matthew Elias, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The decision details the disturbing facts of the offence, Elias’s personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual need for denunciation and deterrence, Elias’s significant mental health issues, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and severe collateral consequences justified a conditional sentence.

The decision applies recent appellate guidance on the range and principles for sentencing in child pornography cases.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

In advance of sentencing, the Crown requested the judge view a selection of the child pornography images and videos, which the defence opposed.

The court, applying principles from R. v. P.M., declined to view the material, finding limited probative value given the detailed agreed facts and the judge's extensive prior experience with such material, and some inherent prejudice to victims.

The applicant sought to extend time to file an application for certiorari and mandamus to judicially review a Crown Attorney's decision to stay a private prosecution for fraud against Bell Canada.

The Crown had stayed the prosecution due to a lack of reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest, viewing it as a civil matter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process by the Crown and that the application lacked merit.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and breach of probation.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (intimate partner relationship, abuse of trust, significant victim impact), and mitigating factors (no prior sexual offence record).

Despite the defence seeking a conditional sentence, the court found it would not meet denunciation and deterrence objectives given the seriousness of the offence and the accused's history of non-compliance with court orders.

A custodial sentence was imposed.

The 24-year-old first-time offender pled guilty to importing 9 handguns and 14 high-capacity magazines across the St. Lawrence River.

The Crown sought 5-6 years, while the defence sought 3.5-4 years.

The court weighed the extreme seriousness of firearms importation against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment, less 15 months credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant was convicted after trial of procuring (s. 286.3), advertising sexual services (s. 286.4), common assault (s. 266), and assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b)).

He was acquitted of human trafficking and related offences.

The victim was a 20-year-old woman with no prior prostitution experience who worked as an escort for one night in September 2015 after being pressured and manipulated by the defendant, her boyfriend.

The defendant arranged clients, set rates, collected all earnings, and later assaulted the victim on two separate occasions in December 2015 and January 2016.

The court applied the Tang factors framework for pimping offences and found the defendant's conduct to be at the lower end of the scale due to its brief duration, lack of force, and limited scope.

The defendant was sentenced to 19 months incarceration (14 months for procuring, 6 months concurrent for advertising, 2 months consecutive for common assault, and 3 months consecutive for assault causing bodily harm), followed by 12 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and a 250-metre exclusion zone.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under the Construction Lien Act after the plaintiff's lien expired.

The court considered whether it had discretion under section 46 of the Act to allow the underlying contract claim to continue despite the expiry of the lien.

Following appellate authority, the court found it had discretion to permit the contract action to proceed to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court exercised its discretion to allow the action to continue on terms, finding no irremediable prejudice to the defendant and favouring the resolution of disputes on their merits.