Jodie Primeau

The court sentenced R.B. to three years in custody after he pleaded guilty to sexual touching of a child under s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The decision reviews the facts, the impact on the victim, the offender’s background, and the applicable law, including the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen on sentencing for sexual offences against children.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim’s age, and the offender’s health and plea.

The court imposed several ancillary orders, including DNA, SOIRA, and firearms prohibitions.

The accused, Patricia Ann Merkley, pleaded guilty to obstructing a peace officer by providing false information during a serious stabbing investigation.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the accused's lack of prior record, her personal circumstances (overcoming addiction, employment), and the fact that her lies were quickly discovered and had minimal impact on the investigation.

The decision weighed the public interest, particularly concerning the implications of a conditional discharge under Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act regarding future cross-examination.

Ultimately, the court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months probation and 50 hours of community service, finding it appropriate given the specific mitigating factors and the likelihood that the accused would not re-offend.

The accused, a transport truck driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle struck a line of stopped traffic on Highway 401, killing one driver.

The Crown argued the accused failed to observe warning signs and maintain a safe distance.

The defence argued the accused was temporarily blinded by the rising sun as he rounded a curve, making the accident unavoidable.

The court found the actus reus was established but concluded the Crown failed to prove the mens rea, as the blinding sun provided a reasonable alternative explanation for the accused's failure to stop.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his tractor-trailer rear-ended a line of stopped traffic on a highway, killing one driver.

At trial, the accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his driving was a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.

The court dismissed the application, finding there was sufficient circumstantial evidence regarding visibility, braking, and impact speed upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer guilt.

Four co-accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on all charges, alleging violation of their right to trial within a reasonable time.

The charges included numerous break and enter offences and drug offences.

The court found that the total delay from October 18, 2017 (date charges laid) to the anticipated completion of trial in April 2020 was 30 months.

After deducting defence-caused delay (7 months and 25 days), waiver (1 day), discrete events (5 days), and case complexity (3 months), the net delay was 19 months, exceeding the Jordan ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay through exceptional circumstances.

Key issues included late and disorganized disclosure from police and Crown, inadequate trial time allocation, and the departure of the case manager from the police investigation without replacement.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, one count of uttering a threat, and ten counts of mischief following an altercation on New Year's Eve 2016 in Petawawa, Ontario.

The accused met the complainant through an online dating website and was invited to his residence.

After attending a party at a third party's residence where the accused felt uncomfortable, tensions escalated.

The accused was found guilty of one assault count, nine mischief counts, and acquitted of one assault count, the uttering threat count, and one mischief count.

The court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to alcohol consumption and determined that her actions demonstrated intentional property damage during a rampage through the complainant's residence.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment, alleging breaches of s. 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) and s. 7 (arbitrary deprivation of liberty) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both Charter challenges and upheld the mandatory minimum as constitutional.

Mitchell, who is paraplegic, received a sentence of ten months imprisonment; Clouthier received nine months.

Both were subject to two years of probation and ancillary orders including DNA sampling, forfeiture of devices, SOIRA registration, and s. 161 prohibitions.

The accused were arrested based on a confidential informant tip indicating they possessed cocaine and oxycodone.

The Crown charged Adams with possession of oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Harkness with possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in oxycodone.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent searches on Charter grounds.

The court found that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, being based on a tip that spoke only of "possibilities" rather than credibly based probability.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel and unreasonable searches of the accused's person and cell phone.

All evidence obtained as a result of these violations was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.