Joseph Alexander Neuberger

Following trial, the accused was convicted of invitation to sexual touching of a child and exposure, with the latter count conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offences involved repeatedly inviting a young child to masturbate the accused in his trailer during a summer while the parties were acquaintances in a recreational community.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for child sexual offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, repeated incidents, and a relationship of trust developed through social familiarity.

Balancing those factors with the offender’s age, health, and lack of prior sexual offences, the court imposed two years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ probation with extensive ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with exposing his genitals and inviting a child to touch him for a sexual purpose.

The offences allegedly occurred in the bedroom of the accused's trailer during the summer of 2016.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was internally inconsistent regarding the frequency of the abuse and that the busy, social nature of the trailer park made the allegations implausible due to a lack of opportunity.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and principles for assessing child witnesses, finding the complainant's core narrative credible and reliable despite peripheral inconsistencies.

The accused's denial was rejected, and he was found guilty of both counts.

The accused, FZ, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his wife, WLM, involving alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse on January 5, 2019, and non-consensual touching of her breast on June 6, 2020.

The Crown's case relied solely on the complainant's testimony, while the defence presented the accused's testimony and expert evidence from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Gojer, who opined that FZ exhibited "complex trauma" and a passive, apologetic personality.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be disingenuous and inconsistent with the textual evidence and the accused's psychological profile, which suggested a controlling dynamic where the complainant was the dominant party.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual assaults occurred and consequently dismissed both charges.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to child luring and possession of child pornography arising from an undercover internet sting and a large child pornography collection.

The accused advanced a s. 12 Charter challenge to the one-year mandatory minimums and sought a conditional sentence, relying in part on expert psychiatric evidence that pedophilia and Autism Spectrum Disorder significantly reduced his moral responsibility and made incarceration detrimental to rehabilitation.

Applying the Nur framework, the court first determined the fit sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum and held that denunciation and deterrence remained paramount for sexual offences against children, notwithstanding the accused's youth, guilty plea, lack of record, treatment efforts, and diminished responsibility.

The court fixed a fit sentence at 18 months' imprisonment on each count, concurrent, followed by three years' probation, rendering the constitutional challenge moot.

This is a sentencing decision for Emmanuel Faria, who pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter.

The victim, SB, who was under 16 at the time of the offence, suffered significant and traumatic impact.

Mr. Faria, a first-time offender, young, and without a criminal record, undertook extensive counselling and psychiatric assessment, showing insight and remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 24-36 months probation and a DNA order, emphasizing the victim's profound impact.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing that a conviction would adversely affect Mr. Faria's future employment and subvert community interests.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 24 months of non-reporting probation, including a term of no contact with the victim, and declined the DNA order, finding it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, consistent with principles for conditional discharges.

Joseph Butera was found guilty of possession of child pornography and arranging through telecommunication to sexually assault a child under the age of 16.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the repeated attempts to have the victim's mother breach trust, instructions for sexual interference, the request for new child pornography images, and the substantial collection of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in light of R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of 45 months, reduced to 38 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and a COVID-19 pandemic multiplier.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime SOIRA registration, forfeiture of devices, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and various lifetime prohibitions on contact with children and internet use.

The defendant, D.J., was charged with sexually assaulting B.B., his sister-in-law.

The trial involved a s. 276 application to admit prior sexual conduct evidence (an alleged consensual affair between D.J. and B.B. two years prior).

The judge, sitting alone, applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The court found significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the timing of reporting the assault, the behaviour of her protective dogs during the alleged assault, and her interactions with police.

The evidence of the complainant's sister, R.B., who testified for the defence, was found to be truthful and contradicted key aspects of the complainant's account regarding when the assault was first reported.

The judge concluded that the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The offender was convicted of child luring and obtaining sexual services from a person under 18 after communicating with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old escort.

At sentencing, the court applied the Kienapple principle to stay one of the luring counts.

The court then considered a Charter challenge to the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 172.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the mandatory minimum would result in a grossly disproportionate sentence in reasonably foreseeable circumstances, the court struck it down under s. 12 of the Charter.

The offender was sentenced to 7 months' imprisonment concurrent on the remaining counts, reflecting his youth, rehabilitation prospects, and lack of prior record.

Arian Faroughi, convicted of communicating with persons believed to be underage for sexual purposes, brought an application to stay the charges due to police entrapment and a violation of his section 7 Charter rights.

The applicant argued that police inducement occurred through persistent texting, exploitation of his nervousness, and the use of a phone number previously associated with other escort ads.

The Crown contended there was no inducement and the applicant was a willing participant.

The court found that the police were acting under a bona fide inquiry and did not induce the applicant, applying the objective test from R. v. Mack.

The court determined that an average person in the applicant's position would not have been induced, and the police's oversight regarding the phone number was harmless and not a deliberate act of entrapment.

The section 7 disclosure argument was also dismissed.

The accused was charged with six offences under the Criminal Code related to online child exploitation following his arrest at a hotel in Markham.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the person he was dealing with was under 16 years of age.

The accused testified that he was confused due to multiple simultaneous conversations, phone technical problems, and message deletions.

The court found the accused's testimony generally not credible but determined that on the whole of the evidence, the accused's explanation that he confused conversations was reasonably possible, leaving a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, theft, mischief, and uttering a death threat arising from events between February and October 2016 in a domestic relationship.

The trial turned on credibility between the complainant and the accused.

While the court found the complainant generally credible despite some concerns about her truthfulness regarding peripheral matters, it determined that the Crown had not proven most charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration.

However, the court found the accused guilty of assault (scratching the complainant's neck on October 29-30, 2016) and mischief (breaking the complainant's cell phone at Pacific Mall), as these incidents were corroborated by physical evidence and circumstantial facts.

In a judge-alone historical sexual offence trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual interference against his stepdaughter arising from incidents in the family home when she was 11 years old.

The case turned primarily on credibility and reliability, with the court applying the W.(D.) framework, rejecting stereotypical assumptions about delayed disclosure and continued association with an abuser, and accepting the complainant's explanation for memory gaps and suppression.

A private journal entry, the complainant's knowledge that the accused was circumcised, and the surrounding family dynamics supported the complainant's account.

The accused's denial was rejected, and proposed Crown expert evidence on abuse dynamics was excluded as unnecessary.

The offender was convicted after trial of possessing $110,000 USD in counterfeit currency imported into Canada.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the purposes and principles of sentencing under ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code and the statutory framework for conditional sentences under s. 742.1.

Considering the offender’s lack of prior record, significant rehabilitation efforts, addiction history, mental health issues, and strong community support, the court concluded that community safety would not be endangered by a conditional sentence.

A 15‑month conditional sentence with strict house arrest, abstinence, counselling, and supervision conditions was imposed along with forfeiture of the counterfeit currency.

On a pre-trial s. 276 application in a sexual assault prosecution, the applicants sought leave to cross-examine the complainant on prior police occurrence reports concerning earlier allegations of sexual assault against other individuals.

The court applied the twin-myth exclusion in s. 276 and the admissibility framework in Darrach, together with the Court of Appeal’s rule in Riley permitting such cross-examination only where earlier allegations were recanted or demonstrably false.

Three prior occurrence reports met that threshold and were admitted solely for the limited purpose of challenging general credibility.

The court prohibited any questioning directed to pattern reasoning, similar-fact reasoning, or escalation theories, and barred inquiry into the factual sexual details of the prior incidents.

In a judge-alone sexual assault trial involving two accused, the central issue was whether the complainant's uncontradicted evidence established absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that although sexual activity occurred, the complainant's evidence was undermined by major inconsistencies, changes in memory over time, intoxication-related uncertainty, and evidence of prior demonstrably false or recanted reports.

On a pre-trial s. 276 application, the court permitted limited cross-examination on certain prior occurrence reports for credibility purposes, finding they did not engage the prohibited inferences.

The Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, and both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who alleged that the taxi driver touched her genitals without consent during a cab ride on December 1, 2012.

The complainant was intoxicated and became ill during the ride.

The defendant denied the allegations and testified that he did not touch the complainant at any time.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was credible, her state of intoxication created a reliability gap in her testimony.

The security camera footage did not corroborate the allegations of continuous touching.

The defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a 62-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his granddaughter.

The alleged incident occurred during a family gathering at the complainant's home.

The complainant testified that the accused entered her bedroom at night and placed her hand on his exposed genitals on two occasions.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that he never entered the complainant's bedroom.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including material discrepancies with her prior statements, inconsistencies with corroborating witnesses regarding timing and details, and concerns about potential reinforcement of her testimony through discussions with her parents.

The court also noted the implausibility of the alleged conduct given the crowded household, the presence of multiple adults, the cluttered bedroom layout, and the accused's health limitations.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Superintendent of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario refusing to stay discipline proceedings against him for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that judicial review of interim administrative decisions is generally refused absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of procedural fairness that would justify intervening before the hearing on the merits.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80.

The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's section 10(b) Charter rights because the police failed to adequately facilitate contact with his counsel of choice, but admitted the breathalyzer readings under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower courts that the evidence was admissible and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by two coroners refusing to issue a summons to a government official to testify about the composition of the jury roll in the Thunder Bay district, specifically regarding the representation of First Nations individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that coroners have no statutory authority under the Coroners Act to inquire into or remedy the process used by the sheriff to compile the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the coroners' refusals.