J. Hiland

The accused, Blake Stacey, pleaded guilty to touching a 15-year-old for a sexual purpose, contrary to s.151 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence as primary in child sexual offence cases, alongside significant mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, Indigenous background (Gladue factors), and substantial rehabilitative efforts.

The accused had suffered childhood sexual abuse linked to Indian day schools and was at a low point due to trauma and substance abuse at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought 3-4 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months (2.5 years) imprisonment, finding it sufficient given the mitigating factors.

The court also imposed a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a DNA order, and specific s.161 Criminal Code orders for 10 years, prohibiting communication with the victim and certain internet use with minors, but declined broader prohibitions on attending places where children congregate or positions of trust.

Christopher Graham pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

The defence challenged the mandatory minimum punishment of one year imprisonment, arguing it infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the s.12 infringement based on R. v. John, leading the court to find the mandatory minimum inapplicable.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was appropriate, with the defence advocating for it and the Crown seeking 15 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are paramount in child pornography cases, citing R. v. T.J. and R. v. M.M., and concluded that a conditional sentence would be insufficient.

Despite the offender's rehabilitative needs and lack of prior record, a carceral sentence was deemed proportionate.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment, followed by 2 years probation, a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and forfeiture of seized devices.

While declining broader s.161 prohibition orders due to no risk of hands-on offences, the court imposed a 10-year internet prohibition under s.161(1)(d) with specific conditions to address the risk of online offending.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury to the victim, resulting in bilateral jaw fractures requiring surgical intervention.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with conditions including restitution, no-contact orders, and a weapons prohibition.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles, noting the serious nature of the assault, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's significant criminal history despite no prior convictions for violence.

The accused applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code while charged with first degree murder arising from a fatal stabbing.

The proposed release plan involved multiple sureties, including family members and a friend, and strict conditions of residence, curfew, employment, and non-contact with witnesses.

The Crown opposed release, citing a history of breaching court orders, absconding from jurisdiction for extended periods, substance abuse, violent conduct, and the strength of the Crown’s case.

The court found the accused posed a significant flight risk and raised concerns regarding witness safety and potential interference with the administration of justice.

Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.