Joanne Griffiths

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a child victim aged 11 or 12 years old.

The offence involved two separate incidents of sexual touching, including direct contact with the victim's genitalia.

After a lengthy procedural history spanning over two years, including an unsuccessful application to strike the guilty plea and a fitness assessment confirming the accused's fitness to stand trial, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day with six months credit for time served, resulting in 18 months remaining custody.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the guilty plea, family support, and the accused's age and cognitive deficits, finding that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence.

The court also imposed a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and section 161 prohibition orders, along with 12 months probation.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while subject to a prohibition order.

The court considered the offender's background, including systemic anti-Black racism, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody involving frequent lockdowns.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment, which was reduced to 12 months of new custody after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was convicted of four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after causing a catastrophic highway collision.

The court found the accused drove on insufficient sleep, falsified log books, and was distracted by his cell phone.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including the extraordinary harm caused, against mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of a prior criminal record and employer pressure.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 8 years imprisonment, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a constitutional challenge to mandatory minimum sentences under ss. 286.2(2) (receiving material benefit from sexual services provided by a person under 18), 286.3(2) (procuring a person under 18), and 163.1(3) (distributing child pornography) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, who were found guilty by a jury, argued these mandatory minimums violated s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court, applying the "grossly disproportionate" standard and considering reasonable hypotheticals, found the mandatory minimums for ss. 286.2(2) and 163.1(3) to be unconstitutional and declared them of no force or effect.

The mandatory minimum for s. 286.3(2) had already been declared unconstitutional in a prior decision.

Following their convictions for various prostitution-related offences involving minors, the applicants sought a declaration that sections 286.2(2), 286.3(2), and 286.4 of the Criminal Code were unconstitutional, arguing they violated sections 7 and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding the impugned sections constitutional.

It held that the sections were not arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate under s. 7, and that while s. 286.4 infringed s. 2(b) freedom of expression, it was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.