John Erickson

The accused, Marcus Lyons, was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

In this sentencing decision, the court addressed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused administered THC to the victim, finding it was not proven due to inconclusive expert testimony.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's two-year-old son during the assault and the accused's prior convictions for violence, alongside mitigating factors such as his good work record and family ties.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed an 18-month term of incarceration, a 20-year sex offender registration order, an order to provide DNA samples, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, B.W., faced charges of sexual assault.

At trial, the defence moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing B.W. was a young person at the time of the alleged offences (1993-1994) and thus should be tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown contended the Superior Court had jurisdiction, citing uncertainty regarding B.W.'s age and provisions of the YCJA.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.W. was 18 or older at the time of the offences, quashing the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, Omar Al-Rubaye, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to a trial without unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 1762 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed periods of defence delay and exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

After deducting 574 days of defence delay and 450 days attributable to the pandemic, the remaining delay was 738 days (24.26 months), falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than reasonable, particularly given the impact of the pandemic on court operations.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant was found guilty of operating a conveyance with a high blood-alcohol concentration (160 mg in 100 ml of blood) after a rear-end collision, with her 12-year-old daughter as a passenger.

She had no prior criminal record but a previous "warn" for alcohol.

The Crown sought 120 days custody, an 18-month license suspension, and 18 months probation.

The defence sought a 1-year driving prohibition and a 30-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 30-day conditional sentence, an 18-month driving prohibition, and 18 months probation with alcohol counselling, emphasizing the need to elevate penalties for impaired driving cases, especially with aggravating factors like an accident and a child passenger.

The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess alcohol after a rear-end collision.

She brought a Charter application to exclude breath test results, arguing her right to counsel (s.10(a) and 10(b)) was infringed because it was not provided earlier during the motor vehicle collision investigation.

The court found that the police officer was credible and was not conducting a drinking and driving investigation until a later point when a stronger odour of alcohol was detected.

The court determined that no detention for Charter purposes occurred until the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand was made, and rights were provided timely thereafter.

Even if a detention occurred earlier, the right to counsel would have been suspended during the preliminary investigation.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an incident at an Airbnb apartment in Toronto.

The complainant alleged she was asleep when the defendant initiated sexual contact without her consent.

The defendant did not testify and called no evidence.

The trial turned on the credibility of the complainant and two corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, including discrepancies between her trial testimony and her initial police statement, exaggerations regarding her level of intoxication, and unsubstantiated claims about the defendant's drug use.

Critically, a witness testified that the complainant and defendant appeared to engage in consensual sexual activity in the bed before walking together into the washroom, directly contradicting the complainant's account of being assaulted while asleep.

The court found it dangerous to rely on the complainant's evidence and acquitted the defendant.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple impaired driving and related offences occurring on two separate occasions: November 27, 2017 and September 15, 2018.

On the first occasion, the accused was observed driving erratically on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 340 mg/100ml while subject to a lifetime driving prohibition.

On the second occasion, he was involved in a collision on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 210-220 mg/100ml while on bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months incarceration less pretrial custody, with consecutive sentences on the impaired driving charges and lifetime driving prohibitions.

The accused, Scott Reeves, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5000.00, involving a total loss of over $3.1 million from four victims (Donna Aiken, Rachel Reeves, Gayle Meehan, and Peter Vignjevic) over several years.

The fraud involved a significant breach of trust, as the victims were friends, relatives, or long-term clients who relied on the accused for financial advice.

The Crown sought a five-year incarceration, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day or 18 months jail.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the magnitude, complexity, and duration of the fraud, and its severe impact on the victims, as well as mitigating factors including the accused's lack of prior record, late guilty plea, and mental health issues.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced the accused to four years' incarceration in a federal penitentiary, along with a lifetime prohibition order, a non-communication order, a DNA sample order, and a restitution order totaling $3,125,453.00, with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of the same amount.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000.

Over approximately six years, he defrauded the Ministry of Community and Social Services of approximately $467,000 by falsely claiming his daughter suffered from diabetes, blindness, and developmental disability, and by submitting forged medical documents and false invoices for non-existent treatments.

Over 13 years, he defrauded Camp Quality, a charity for children with cancer, of approximately $80,000 by falsely claiming both his children had leukemia.

The accused had made restitution of $233,000 at the time of sentencing.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence concurrent on all counts, followed by three years of probation, along with a fine in lieu of forfeiture and a restitution order for outstanding amounts.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after violently beating a woman in his apartment, resulting in serious injuries including a broken nose.

The accused had a criminal record that included previous assaults against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought an additional 6 to 12 months in custody on top of time served, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court imposed a sentence of two years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 17 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death to his former wife and counselling a tenant to commit her murder following an acrimonious divorce.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two witnesses who claimed the accused repeatedly asked them to procure a gun.

The court found both witnesses to be highly unreliable due to severe substance abuse, memory issues, and significant inconsistencies in their evidence.

Concluding that the Crown failed to prove the specific intent and the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on both counts.

The offender, a 40-year-old Aboriginal man, pleaded guilty to possession of approximately 300 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a maximum reformatory sentence of two years less a day, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation.

The defence sought a maximum intermittent sentence of 90 days followed by probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months of probation, finding that the offender's Indigenous ancestry, significant rehabilitation efforts since arrest, cultural reintegration, and commitment to family, education, and employment warranted a non-custodial disposition consistent with Gladue and Ipeelee principles and restorative justice objectives.

The offender was arrested carrying a loaded 32-calibre revolver in a public park after being threatened by an assailant at a shelter.

He pled guilty to possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 months, reduced to 6 months after applying 1.5:1 credit for 325 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by 18 months of probation.

The decision addresses the application of sentencing principles following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Nur striking down the three-year mandatory minimum for firearm possession offences, and provides extensive analysis of the mitigative effect of harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The applicant was arrested at gunpoint by plainclothes police officers who suspected him of trafficking heroin from his vehicle.

A warrantless search of the vehicle incident to arrest yielded a large quantity of heroin hidden in false-bottomed aerosol cans and cash.

The applicant brought a Charter application under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) to exclude the evidence, arguing the police lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on the totality of the circumstances observed by the surveillance team.

Alternatively, applying the Grant framework, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the reliability of the evidence and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits.

The accused pleaded guilty to a historical count of indecent assault against a child occurring between 1976 and 1982 in circumstances involving a position of trust.

The offences involved repeated sexual abuse of a very young child over several years and caused lasting psychological harm.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 to 24 months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The court found that although incarceration would normally be required, the accused’s advanced age and severe medical conditions created a substantial risk that imprisonment would endanger his life.

A conditional sentence with strict house arrest and probation was imposed to balance denunciation with compassion for the offender’s medical circumstances.

Sentencing following jury convictions for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, possession knowing no licence was held, and possession of a prohibited magazine.

Police located a loaded 9mm handgun with an oversized magazine during execution of a search warrant in a residence where the offender and two young children were present.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearm offences and imposed a custodial sentence reflecting the seriousness of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay one overlapping count and imposed concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

Credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted with enhanced credit for periods of triple bunking and lockdown conditions.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The Crown sought to rely on the presumption under s. 258(1) of the Criminal Code based on the accused occupying the driver's seat when police arrived.

The court found the presumption was rebutted because the accused was initially outside the vehicle, was directed into the car by police for safety reasons, and the vehicle was inoperable.

The court further found that even without the presumption, the Crown failed to prove care or control beyond a reasonable doubt because the vehicle posed no realistic risk of danger given its location in a remote ditch, its inoperability, and the absence of any attempt by the accused to operate it.

The accused was acquitted.