Joel Abraham Prajs

The court dismissed the conviction appeal in a sexual assault case, finding no reversible misapprehension of evidence, no misuse of the complainant's voice note despite the absence of a voir dire, and no uneven scrutiny.

It granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal as the sentence was fit and within range.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Christopher Green to 2 years' imprisonment followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order after he pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography offences and breaches of court orders.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence plus ancillary orders including lifetime prohibitions under ss. 109, 161, DNA, and SOIRA.

The defence argued for time served with enhanced pre-trial credit and opposed the long-term supervision order.

The court found that Green's repeated offending, despite prior sentences and supervision, demonstrated a substantial risk of reoffending, driven by an underlying sexual preference for adolescent males and substance abuse issues.

The court applied the principles from R v Friesen and R v Pike to impose a denunciatory sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences and the harm to victims.

Enhanced pre-trial custody credit was granted due to harsh detention conditions.

The long-term supervision order was imposed for the maximum 10 years to ensure structured supervision and risk management in the community.

The accused, Fitzroy Allen, applied to exclude evidence in his criminal trial (possession for trafficking, flight from police, dangerous driving, and failing to comply with a release order).

He argued that the police violated his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights by conducting an unlawful traffic stop and subsequent search.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach but argued the evidence was lawfully seized due to an intervening act (flight from police) and that s. 8 was not breached.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was unlawful, not based on HTA violations but on a desire to conduct a criminal investigation due to the applicant's outstanding charges.

The court rejected the racial profiling allegation.

It further found that the applicant's flight from an unlawful stop did not constitute an intervening event that legitimizes subsequent police actions, thus the subsequent pursuit, arrest, and search also violated ss. 8 and 9.

Applying the Grant inquiry, the court found the breaches serious and the impact on the applicant's Charter interests significant, outweighing the public interest in admitting the reliable evidence.

The application to exclude the physical evidence and post-breach police observations was granted.