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 court sentenced the offender for two counts of sexual interference arising from separate incidents involving two 15-year-old victims, after staying related sexual assault convictions under the Kienapple principle.

Applying the sentencing guidance for child sexual offences, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, the multiplicative gravity created by multiple child victims, the repeated abuse of one victim, the serious physical violations involved, and the severe ongoing psychological harm described in victim impact statements.

Although the offender had a limited unrelated record, employment history, family support, and no identified current substance or mental health issues, those mitigating factors did not materially reduce the need for a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

A global sentence of seven years was imposed, with consecutive terms of four years and three years, less 11 days' credit, together with ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, non-communication, and child-contact prohibitory orders.

The accused was tried on sexual assault and sexual touching counts involving two 15-year-old complainants arising from separate incidents at the same apartment during the same summer.

The court admitted the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other counts, applying the Handy framework and finding substantial similarities, strong probative value, and no air of reality to allegations of collusion.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as incredible and found both complainants credible, internally consistent, and corroborated by surrounding evidence, including expert medical evidence respecting healed genital injury to one complainant.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

In a murder prosecution, the court ruled on the admissibility of multiple statements made by the accused during a missing person and homicide investigation.

Early out-of-custody statements and a spontaneous cell utterance were found voluntary and admissible.

The first late-night custodial interview was held to violate s. 10(b) because police failed to respect the accused's efforts to consult counsel and belittled the right to legal advice; it was also found involuntary because the interrogation overbore the accused's ability to choose whether to speak.

The second custodial interview was tainted by the first, and later statements were found obtained in a manner connected to Charter breaches, including unlawful and arbitrary continued detention contrary to s. 9 arising from non-compliance with s. 503 of the Criminal Code.

All statements made after 11:16 p.m. on July 5, 2011 were excluded under s. 24(2).

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.

This sentencing decision followed jury convictions arising from the sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old through online advertisements, hotel-based sex work, and related financial benefit offences.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code where the offences involved abuse of a person under 18, while still recognizing rehabilitation as relevant given the offenders' youth.

Applying the sentencing fact-finding principles governing mixed jury verdicts, the court concluded that some violence described by the victim could be accepted despite acquittals on trafficking and certain other counts, but not conduct underlying specific acquittals.

The court also addressed the constitutionality of mandatory minimum penalties and imposed individualized custodial sentences, pre-sentence custody credits, probation for one offender, and ancillary DNA, firearms prohibition, no-contact, SOIRA, and victim fine surcharge orders.