Joseph Callaghan

The accused was stopped at a RIDE spot check and an officer made a breath demand under section 320.27(1)(b) of the Criminal Code based on reasonable suspicion.

The officer's grounds for suspicion were insufficient to meet the objective standard.

The Crown sought to rely on section 320.27(2) (mandatory alcohol screening) at trial, which does not require reasonable suspicion.

The court found that the two subsections are not mutually exclusive and that an officer need not subjectively rely on section 320.27(2) for a demand to be valid under that provision.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the breath demand and dismissed the Charter application.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, five counts of publishing voyeuristic recordings, and one count of breaching a release order.

Between 2016 and 2023, the accused installed hidden recording devices in the homes and vacation property of five victims, recording them in various states of undress.

He subsequently published these intimate images on cyber-exploitation websites, including the victims' real names.

The accused committed some offences while on bail for similar charges involving his step-sister.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody, to be served consecutively to an existing sentence.

The sentence reflects the egregious nature of the offences, the serious breach of trust, the repeated violations of privacy, and the devastating impact on the victims.

This decision addresses the application of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the police's receipt and use of an IP address linked to child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

The court distinguishes the passive receipt of an IP address from a third-party American organization (NCMEC) from an active police request, finding no breach of section 8 rights.

The decision emphasizes the legislative framework governing mandatory reporting by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Canada and the U.S., which reduces the reasonable expectation of privacy in IP addresses used to access or distribute CSAM.

The court also finds that police steps to confirm ISP and location information without prior judicial authorization did not violate section 8.

Even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the offence and limited impact of the breach.

Sean Done was convicted of accessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing decision addresses the protracted procedural history, including Charter applications, and extensive evidentiary record including psychological and psychiatric assessments diagnosing pedophilia limited to internet offending.

The court emphasized the equivalence of accessing and possessing child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the aggravating factors such as the large quantity and nature of the material, sharing and trading of CSAM, and counselling others to avoid detection.

Mitigating factors included Mr. Done’s lack of prior record, engagement in therapy, and supportive family.

The court imposed a 22-month custodial sentence (after a 4-month reduction for Charter breaches), followed by two years probation with strict conditions, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA registration for 20 years, forfeiture of the cellphone, and waiver of victim fine surcharge.

This sentencing decision addresses multiple armed robbery offences and possession of a loaded restricted firearm by Travis Hinds, a young first-time offender.

The court considered the aggravating factors including the use and possession of firearms in multiple planned robberies, the serious injury caused to a victim by a firearm discharge, and the public safety risk posed by such crimes.

Mitigating factors such as Hinds' youth, guilty pleas, lack of prior record, and family support were also weighed.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, concurrent sentences for multiple counts, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture of seized firearm and ammunition, and a no-contact order with victims.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, arguing a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under R. v. Jordan, despite the total delay of 16 months and 9 days being below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence demonstrated a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, primarily due to significant and inexplicable delays by the police in providing crucial video disclosure (complainant's statement, 911 audio, and medical records) for over seven months.

The court emphasized the constitutional disclosure obligations of the Crown and the police's role in timely disclosure.

The application for a stay was granted, and the proceedings were stayed.