Jill Gamble

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with his three-year-old daughter, possession of child pornography, and making child pornography.

The Crown sought 15 years imprisonment; the defence sought 10 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment (7 years for sexual interference, 2 years consecutive for possession, and 3 years consecutive for making child pornography), with credit for 677 days of pre-trial custody.

The court found the breach of trust profound, the victim extremely young, and the collection of 19,130 child pornography images highly aggravating.

The court recognized the accused's genuine remorse and guilty plea as significant mitigating factors but found insufficient insight into his offending behaviour.

Ancillary orders were imposed including SOIRA registration, DNA order, forfeiture of devices, and a section 161 order for 20 years.

The accused was charged on an eight-count indictment with offences relating to his daughter, including assault, uttering threats to cause death, sexual touching, sexual assault, and trafficking cocaine.

The Crown withdrew one count and invited acquittal on another.

The trial proceeded with evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W(D) test and found reasonable doubt on all remaining counts, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but determined that the Crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the remaining counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Terry Hull, who was shot on July 5, 2023, in Owen Sound, Ontario.

The accused fired two of three shots that killed the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment (net of pre-sentence custody credit), finding the case fell within the upper end of the 8-to-12-year range for manslaughter with significant aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record, possession of modified firearms while prohibited, breach of release and probation orders, and efforts to conceal the body.

The court balanced aggravating factors against the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Michael Paul Taylor was found guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm (two counts), dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm (two counts), and refusing to submit to an evaluation.

The court rejected the Kienapple principle application, finding distinct elements for impaired and dangerous driving.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors, including the severe, life-altering injuries to two victims, the commercial nature of the vehicle, and the offender's extensive criminal and driving record.

Mitigating factors included intergenerational abuse from his Indigenous background (Gladue principles) and his chronic pain.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the driving offences, plus a consecutive 6 months for refusing the drug test, a 15.5-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellant, a 13-year-old, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting his seven-year-old half-sister.

The appeal raised two grounds: insufficient trial judge reasons and an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons, though brief, were sufficient, adequately explaining her decision and addressing the victim's limitations and the defence arguments.

The court also found the verdict was not unreasonable, applying the high threshold for unreasonableness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, P.P., appealed convictions for sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony.

The complainant, the appellant's nephew, testified about abuse occurring when he was a child.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings, which were amply explained and supported by the record, and dismissed the appeal.

The accused, L.H., was charged with repeated sexual assault of the complainant during their marriage.

The complainant described four incidents, which the accused denied.

Both parties presented evidence that was generally credible, but the court found minor concerns with the credibility and reliability of both.

Due to diametrically opposed narratives and insufficient corroborating evidence, the court was left in a state of doubt as to which version was true.

Applying the R. v. W.D. test, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, challenged the validity of a telewarrant to search his home and the admissibility of his statement to police.

The court found the Information to Obtain contained sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The court also held that the accused's statement was voluntary, as he possessed an operating mind despite his references to demons and curses, and that his rights to silence and counsel under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were not breached.

Both applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

A child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act where the society sought extended society care with no access, and the respondent mother sought return of the child with supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues (severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation), ongoing substance abuse (crystal methamphetamine and marijuana), inability to follow professional direction, and lack of reliable family support.

The court determined the child was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and made an order for extended society care without access, with the foster parents approved for adoption.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

The accused, Cory Greavette and Douglas Flett, were jointly tried on charges including robbery, possession of property obtained by crime, uttering threats (Greavette only), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (Greavette only).

The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable and incredible due to memory issues, inconsistencies, admitted dishonesty, and lack of common sense.

Corroborative evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome these frailties.

The court found both accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marihuana and MDMA, following a police search of an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of the accused entering the building and their presence in the apartment when the search warrant was executed.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidence reasonably supported inferences other than guilt, specifically that the accused lacked knowledge and control of the drugs.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery with violence, disguise with intent, and uttering threats arising from a convenience store robbery in which the offender assaulted and threatened the store clerk while stealing cigarettes and money.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record, including numerous prior convictions for violent and related offences, and applied the sentencing principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including consideration of the offender’s Indigenous background.

The court found denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, and rehabilitation to be the dominant sentencing objectives.

Despite the offender’s difficult upbringing and family circumstances, his chronic recidivism and the violent nature of the offence were significant aggravating factors.

A global custodial sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and concurrent sentences on the related counts.

The accused was charged with production of cannabis and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from a large marihuana grow operation discovered in rural Grey County.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the property and to individuals involved in the operation through agreements, documents, fuel accounts, and equipment purchases.

The court accepted that the accused had prior property and financial connections with certain individuals and properties but found no reliable evidence placing him at the grow operation or proving knowledge of the illegal activity.

The evidence was equally consistent with the possibility that the accused held an interest in the property but was unaware of the grow operation.

As the Crown failed to prove knowledge or participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on both counts.

In a child protection appeal, the child protection society brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence consisting of affidavits filed during a prior motion to stay a Crown wardship order pending appeal.

The appellant parent opposed the admission of the affidavits on the basis that the evidence could have been presented at the original hearing.

The court held that in child protection appeals the admissibility of fresh evidence is governed by a more flexible standard focused on the best interests of the child.

Finding the affidavits highly relevant to the child’s welfare, the court admitted them as fresh evidence, except for one paragraph of a foster parent affidavit that was excluded as speculative opinion evidence with minimal probative value.

The applicant father sought sole custody of a child born in April 2005, initially seeking joint custody with status quo access but changing his position at trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the father's evidence was unreliable and evasive, with significant concerns about his parenting choices including alcohol use, exposure to violent video games, allowing the child to handle firearms, and inadequate supervision.

The mother, while having some issues with conflict management, demonstrated a stronger commitment to the child's welfare and maintained a stable primary caregiving relationship.

The court also imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on deliberate underemployment and ordered arrears and ongoing support.

The accused was charged with six offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving two complainants, his daughter and granddaughter, relating to alleged incidents occurring over many years.

After a brief judge-alone trial, the court assessed the credibility and reliability of both complainants.

The court found numerous material inconsistencies and omissions in the granddaughter’s evidence, raising significant reliability concerns.

Although the daughter’s testimony was closer to meeting the criminal standard, the court found her evidence overly vague and implausible in certain respects, and noted the absence of expected corroborative circumstances.

Applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court concluded the Crown had not proven any of the charges.

The accused brought an application seeking disclosure of third‑party mental health records belonging to a witness from a treatment facility.

Following a prior order requiring production of the records to the court for review, the judge conducted an in camera inspection and issued a judicial summary for counsel.

The court concluded that most of the records were not relevant to the charges, the witness’s memory, or competence to testify.

However, several specified documents relating to mental health assessments and progress notes were identified as potentially relevant to issues at trial.

The records remained sealed pending a further hearing to determine whether any should be disclosed to the defence.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter and granddaughter, brought an application for the production of the daughter's therapeutic records from a health centre.

The complainant opposed the application.

The court found that the accused established the records were likely relevant to an issue at trial, specifically the reliability of the complainant's memory, as she had admitted to police and at the preliminary inquiry that electro-shock treatments had affected her memory.

The court ordered the records to be produced for judicial review at the first stage of the application.