J. McIntyre

The Crown applied to have Derek Fellows declared a dangerous offender pursuant to section 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy by luring him into a forest and attempting forced anal intercourse, possessing child pornography, and breaching two court orders prohibiting contact with children.

The offender had a prior conviction in 2005 for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 7-year-old boy and multiple convictions for possessing child pornography.

The court found that all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were satisfied and imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

Shiloh Pettipas-Lizak pleaded guilty to pointing a firearm at his girlfriend.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the domestic context, the presence of children, the sustained nature of the threat, and the victim's lasting psychological harm, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's genuine remorse, significant rehabilitative efforts over six years, stable employment, sobriety, and reconnection with his children.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the unique circumstances, including the judicial error that led to separate sentencing proceedings.

A conditional sentence of 21 months was imposed, with house arrest for the first seven months, followed by a curfew, along with other conditions, a lifetime section 109 order, and a DNA order.

The defendant, T.G., brought an application seeking a discharge on all counts based on cause of action estoppel or, alternatively, a stay of proceedings for abuse of process.

The charges involved sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his step-daughter, with alleged incidents occurring in both York Region (Ontario) and Winnipeg (Manitoba).

T.G. argued that the charges should have been combined and prosecuted in one province, and that the bifurcation deprived him of a global resolution.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the civil doctrine of cause of action estoppel does not apply in criminal law, where the comparable doctrine is double jeopardy.

Furthermore, the court found that while the police conduct in delaying the York Region charges was "far from ideal," it did not constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay, as there was no evidence of improper purpose or vindictiveness.

The defendant was charged with four counts of breaching a probation order and possession of scissors for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The Crown alleged that the defendant possessed scissors as a weapon based on his admission of suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming group home staff.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the scissors with the intention to use them as a weapon.

The defendant was acquitted of counts 1 and 2 (weapon-related charges) but convicted of counts 3, 4, and 5 (breaches of probation for failing to reside where directed, failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and communicating with persons with criminal records).