John A. Desotti

Judge-alone criminal trial on historical sexual offence allegations spanning youth and adult periods, involving multiple complainants who were neighbours, relatives, daughters, or step-daughters of the accused.

The court admitted cross-over similar fact evidence between the youth and adult indictments, and also considered prior sworn evidence from another complainant, applying the similar fact evidence framework from Handy and related authorities.

After applying W. (D.), the court accepted the evidence of four complainants as credible and reliable beyond a reasonable doubt, but found a reasonable doubt on two adult counts because of a material inconsistency in one complainant's account.

Convictions were entered on 26 adult counts and all 26 youth counts, with acquittals on counts 27 and 28 of the adult indictment.

The accused was tried on a charge under s. 153.1 of the Criminal Code alleging sexual conduct with a complainant who had Down syndrome and functioned at the level of a young child.

The court found both the complainant and the accused credible, but held the complainant was highly susceptible to suggestion from authority figures.

The allegation first emerged only after the complainant's sister, in a frightened state over sores she believed might indicate a sexually transmitted disease, directly suggested the accused's name and sexual acts.

Because the origin of the allegation created a reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, the accused was acquitted.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel due to a conflict of interest after the same lawyer had represented both an accused and a key Crown witness who later provided incriminating statements.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the witness’s evidence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, arguing police inducements and delayed disclosure compromised their fair trial rights.

The court found that while police comments undermining the witness’s confidence in her lawyer were inappropriate, the accused could not rely on alleged Charter breaches affecting the witness, and no actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence was established.

The court declined to grant a stay or exclude the witness’s evidence but held the conflict required removal of counsel.

The accused would need to obtain new counsel and a new trial date.

The accused was convicted of multiple counts of drug trafficking (heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine) and simple possession after concealing the drugs in his anal cavity.

The accused had a significant prior criminal record for drug trafficking and showed no remorse or effort toward rehabilitation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to a global term of 10 years' incarceration, reduced to 7 years, 3 months, and 24 days after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture of seized property, and a DNA sample.

The accused was charged with theft of a motor vehicle over $5,000, uttering threats to cause death, and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified.

The only contested issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.

Although the court treated the in‑dock eyewitness identifications as unreliable and gave them little weight, it relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused’s clothing, physical condition, proximity to the crash scene, the presence of pliers used to break the vehicle window, the absence of footwear, and the timing of police pursuit and arrest.

Considering the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the court found the Crown had proven identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a brick of cocaine wrapped in his T-shirt was found in the fuse box of a commercial truck he was a passenger in.

The truck was driven by a co-accused who testified against him.

Applying the W. (D.) test and a Vetrovec caution, the court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and found him guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence, video surveillance, and the co-accused's testimony.

The accused, charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of drug evidence discovered while he was detained in a police “dry cell.” Police had obtained a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code authorizing detention until the accused passed drugs concealed in his anal cavity.

The accused argued that the warrant and the delay in bringing him before a justice violated ss. 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter and s. 503 of the Criminal Code.

The court held the warrant was valid and that the “dry cell” detention constituted the least intrusive method available to recover the drugs given the accused’s concealment method.

Even if Charter breaches occurred, the court concluded the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the seriousness of the offences and police good faith.

The three accused were charged with robbery with a firearm and related offences.

At their jury trial, the sole Crown witness claimed complete memory loss.

The Crown sought to introduce her preliminary hearing transcript.

The trial judge ruled the transcript admissible but subject to strong Vetrovec warnings.

Recognizing the severe prejudice to the defence, who had elected a jury trial expecting to cross-examine the witness, the judge allowed the accused to re-elect a judge-alone trial, finding the Crown's refusal to consent to the re-election was an abuse of process.

Sitting as a judge alone, the trial judge found the witness's uncorroborated evidence insufficient and acquitted all accused.

The parties separated and initially shared a 50-50 parenting arrangement.

Following the sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant father moved temporarily, and the respondent mother relocated to Dorchester, successfully obtaining an order to change the child's school.

On this motion, the court considered whether to maintain the week-about schedule.

The court ordered interim joint custody with primary residence to the respondent mother, finding the week-about schedule too onerous given the new school and residence locations, and granted the applicant father generous access.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault after stabbing the complainant during a dispute over payment for marijuana.

The accused admitted stabbing the complainant but claimed self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, alleging he acted while restrained in a chokehold.

The court rejected the accused’s account due to multiple inconsistencies in his police statement and conflicts with other evidence.

The judge accepted the complainant’s testimony that the accused initiated the knife attack during a confrontation arising from a failed drug transaction.

The defence of self-defence lacked an air of reality and the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following separation of a second marriage with no children, the court determined outstanding family law issues including valuation of farm equipment, equalization of net family property, and continuation of spousal support.

The applicant alleged that partial minutes of settlement resolving certain property issues had been signed under a forged signature, but the court rejected the allegation on a balance of probabilities and upheld the validity of the settlement.

Conflicting appraisal evidence regarding farm equipment values was presented, and the court preferred the respondent’s expert evidence due to its credibility and methodological reliability.

The court calculated equalization payable to the applicant based largely on the respondent’s valuations and ordered payment within 30 days.

Due to the applicant’s litigation conduct and unsupported allegations of fraud, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent and deducted those costs from the equalization payment.

Following trial, the court requested written submissions on the quantum of damages and the issue of costs in a dispute involving unpaid professional services.

The parties largely agreed on the base amount of treatment and assessment invoices but differed on interest and overall damages.

The court preferred the defendants’ calculations and fixed damages at $14,048.59 inclusive of interest adjustments and prior payments.

On costs, the court considered prior motion cost orders and multiple settlement offers under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that the defendants’ offers exceeded the trial result.

After setting off various cost awards and applying partial indemnity and substantial indemnity principles, the net judgment payable to the plaintiff was reduced to $48.59.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation.

The investigating officer, noting the accused's nervous demeanour, evasive answers, and the presence of a baseball bat and knife in the vehicle, detained the accused for officer safety.

During a pat-down search, the officer discovered cocaine in the accused's pocket.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the investigative detention and pat-down search were justified based on the totality of the circumstances and officer safety concerns.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including sexual interference with a minor, making and possessing child pornography, smuggling obscene materials, and breaching recognizance conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe emotional impact on the victim and the accused's flagrant breaches of bail conditions by re-offending.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 6 years in custody, reduced to 4.5 years net after applying a 1.5:1 enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to physical assaults suffered in jail.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of drugs seized from his clothing during execution of a search warrant at a residence suspected of drug trafficking.

Police detained the accused after observing marijuana, cash, and a crack pipe in plain view, conducted a pat-down, and then performed a strip search based on prior knowledge that the accused concealed drugs on his person.

The accused argued the search was unconstitutional and that the resulting evidence should be excluded.

The court found the detention, arrest, and search were supported by reasonable and probable grounds and that the strip search was justified in the circumstances.

Even if there had been a breach, the evidence would not be excluded under the s. 24(2) analysis.

The accused was tried on an eight-count indictment alleging sexual offences against a child.

The Crown proceeded only on four counts of sexual touching, with the sexual assault counts subsumed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The complainant provided detailed testimony describing repeated incidents in which the accused touched her vagina while she slept in his bed during visits to his residence.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and consistent witness and rejected the accused’s denials, noting his evasive answers during cross‑examination and admissions that corroborated aspects of the complainant’s account.

Applying the framework in R. v. W. (D.), the court concluded the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter seeking exclusion of evidence obtained during the execution of a telewarrant at his residence on drug trafficking charges.

The defence argued the telewarrant lacked sufficient grounds because it relied heavily on information from a confidential informant and contained an error regarding the accused’s vehicle.

The court applied the Debot framework assessing the compelling nature of the tip, the credibility of the source, and police corroboration.

Despite a mistake in the information to obtain, the court found the informant’s observations, partial corroboration by police records and surveillance, and prior reliability of the source sufficient to justify the warrant.

The court concluded the totality of the circumstances supported issuance of the telewarrant and refused to exclude the evidence.

Following a conviction for first degree murder committed when the offender was 15 years old, the Crown applied under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the imposition of an adult sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s age and background, the lengthy delay between the offence and arrest, and whether a youth sentence would adequately hold the offender accountable.

The murder involved a violent aggravated sexual assault of a vulnerable elderly victim and had a significant impact on the community.

Although the offender had lived an otherwise law‑abiding life in the intervening years and was assessed as a low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that the gravity and circumstances of the offence required an adult sentence to achieve meaningful accountability.

A life sentence with a seven‑year parole ineligibility period was imposed, and the conviction for aggravated sexual assault was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Two accused were jointly charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences following a police traffic stop and brief pursuit.

Controlled substances were discovered in plain view on the centre console of the vehicle, and a civilian witness observed the passenger discard a plastic bag containing a handgun nearby.

The court held that both accused had joint knowledge and control of the drugs and were guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The driver was convicted of fleeing police and dangerous driving but acquitted of the joint firearm offences due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge of the firearm.

The passenger was found guilty of all firearm-related offences and possession while prohibited.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior child support order.

The respondent had relocated to England and sought to rely on a provisional order from an English family court reflecting his reduced income as a landscape architect after leaving higher-paying employment as a boilermaker.

The court imputed income of $80,000 to the respondent, finding that his change in employment was voluntary and undertaken for personal reasons.

The court recalculated child support obligations, adjusted section 7 extraordinary expenses, and added unpaid post-secondary education expenses to the arrears.

The respondent’s pension from his former union was ordered to stand as security for accumulated child support arrears.