Joseph F. Kenkel

The accused was convicted of offences contrary to sections 172 and 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

Following conviction, the accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court considered whether the Jordan presumptive ceiling applies to post-verdict entrapment applications and whether the overall delay breached section 11(b).

The court held that the Jordan ceiling applies only to the end of trial and does not extend to post-trial proceedings.

The court further found no breach of section 11(b) rights after verdict, as the accused retains the right to have post-trial applications heard within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with communicating via telecommunication with a person he believed to be under 16 for the purpose of facilitating an invitation to sexual touching, and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18.

The charges arose from Project Raphael, an undercover police investigation targeting purchasers of sexual services from minors.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police engaged in random virtue testing.

The court dismissed the entrapment application, finding the investigation was a bona fide investigation conducted at a location where juvenile prostitution was active and reasonably suspected to be ongoing, and that the accused was not induced to commit the offence.

A bail de novo hearing under section 33 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act concerning a young person charged with assault, carrying a concealed weapon, failing to comply with a youth court sentence, threatening to cause bodily harm, theft, possession of stolen property, possession of a burglary tool, failing to comply with a recognizance, and drug-related offences.

The Crown consented to release with a surety, while the defence sought release to a bail program with shelter accommodation.

The court found that the young person's history of non-compliance with bail conditions and failure to appear in court, combined with allegations of further offences committed while on bail, demonstrated that supervision by a bail program would be insufficient.

The court released the young person on a recognizance with a surety and imposed strict conditions including residence with the surety, attendance at school or employment, drug counselling, weapons prohibition, and no contact with the complainant.

The Crown sought to admit surveillance video evidence of an incident involving the accused, who was charged with care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The defence objected to the admissibility of the video on the grounds that no representative from the business that maintained the surveillance system was called to authenticate the copy, and that there was no evidence the video had not been altered.

The court ruled the video admissible, finding that circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimony from police officers and in-car videos established the accuracy and integrity of the surveillance recording on a balance of probabilities.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath test evidence on the grounds of breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused alleged that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" as required under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, and that no Prosper warning was given when she abandoned her request for counsel and asked to proceed with breath testing.

The court found no breach of section 8, as the informal demand was sufficient and any delay was minimal and reasonably explained.

The court found no breach of section 10(b), as the Crown proved a valid, free, and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel with full awareness of the consequences.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault, threatening to cause death, failing to comply with probation arising from a domestic altercation involving strangulation and death threats, and possession under in relation to theft of a Blu-Ray player.

The accused had an extensive criminal record dating back to 1999, including 13 theft-related convictions, 14 prior breaches of court orders, and two recent serious domestic violence convictions against the same complainant.

The court imposed a global sentence of six months custody less time served, with the remaining sentence to be 91 days, to be followed by probation with conditions including domestic violence and drug treatment counselling.

The accused was convicted at trial of three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

While providing hair salon services, he touched the breasts of three female customers on separate occasions, with the touching being deliberate and repeated, and in one case occurring under the victim's bra.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 4 to 6 months followed by probation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing the accused's status as a permanent resident and potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by two years of probation with restrictive conditions, finding that incarceration was necessary to meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence despite the accused's lack of criminal record and stable employment.

The accused was convicted of criminal harassment contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code after persistently pursuing a man from her church despite his repeated refusals and the intervention of church officials.

The court found that underlying mental health issues significantly reduced the accused's moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, including conditions prohibiting contact with the complainant and church members, requiring attendance at mental health counselling, and imposing a 10-year firearms prohibition under s. 109 and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with threatening to cause bodily harm contrary to section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused made threatening statements to a Children's Aid Society caseworker when she attended his home to remove his children.

The accused denied making the threats.

The trial judge found the caseworker to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as unreliable.

The court found that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a conviction.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of approved instrument breath test readings pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple breaches of his Charter rights.

The primary focus at trial was whether the officer had reasonable grounds for the approved instrument demand given the possibility of mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no Charter breach.

The officer's observation of the accused drinking while driving, the presence of an open beer can in the vehicle console, the accused's admission of prior drinking, and the odour of beer on the accused's breath provided reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device test.

The court rejected the defence argument that the officer should have suspected further drinking during a two-minute interval when the accused was briefly unattended, finding the accused's testimony unreliable and the officer's belief that no further drinking occurred to be logical and reasonable.

The officer properly waited more than 15 minutes after the accused's last observed drink before administering the approved instrument test, ensuring test reliability.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion for a mistrial based on concerns raised by the Crown during trial that the accused may have been drinking alcohol and impaired.

The Crown's concern was based on observations by an officer in the hallway.

Defence counsel confirmed with the accused that he had not been drinking and was fit to proceed.

The defence argued that the mention of the issue could prevent a fair trial given that the charge related to alcohol and driving.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that trial courts routinely hear prejudicial evidence later found inadmissible and must disregard such evidence.

The court noted that no prejudicial result occurred from the Crown's concern, which was appropriately raised and addressed.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code and several highway traffic offences following a motor vehicle crash on the 407 at the 400 ramp.

The Crown proved the accused was prohibited from driving at the time of the crash.

The sole issue was identification—whether the Crown proved the accused drove the vehicle and fled the scene.

Two Crown witnesses provided descriptions of the driver, but neither participated in a photo lineup.

The court found the in-dock identification, based on general observations and not tested by a photo lineup, could not be given much weight.

The charge was dismissed as the Crown failed to prove the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg%.

Following a traffic stop for speeding in a parking lot, the officer observed signs of impairment including erratic driving, slurred speech, and the odour of alcohol.

The accused refused to comply with police directions and demanded a supervisor.

After arrest, the officer failed to read the Approved Instrument demand at the scene, but the breath technician made a timely demand at the station.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds for the arrest and demand, and that the Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt despite the accused's argument that the impairment was only slight.

The accused, a salon owner, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against three separate female clients who alleged he repeatedly touched their breasts in a sexual manner while cutting or dyeing their hair.

The Crown alleged the repeated touching, manner of contact, accused's statements, and multiple independent complaints proved sexual assault.

The defence contended the complaints were fabrications and any contact was unintentional and non-sexual.

The court found all three complainants credible and reliable witnesses whose evidence was internally consistent, logically progressive, and corroborated by external circumstances.

The accused's testimony was found to be not credible, internally inconsistent, and implausible given his claimed lack of memory regarding dramatic events.

The court found the similar fact evidence admissible and probative, establishing a clear pattern of intentional sexual assault.

The Crown proved all three charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100ml following a collision with a stopped vehicle.

The Crown proved the impaired operation charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on extensive evidence of physical and mental impairment, including the circumstances of the collision, the accused's unsteady gait, disorientation, emotional instability, and extreme intoxication observed by police officers.

However, the Crown failed to prove the over 80 charge because the breath tests were conducted outside the two-hour statutory window, and the court declined to take judicial notice of toxicology calculations to bridge the gap.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from his communication via text message with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl offering sexual services.

The charges were: communicating with a person believed to be under 18 to facilitate obtaining sexual services for consideration; communicating with a person believed to be under 16 to facilitate invitation to sexual touching; and communicating to obtain sexual services from a person under 18.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed he was communicating with a minor.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and contradicted by the text message record.

The court concluded the accused made a detailed agreement to purchase sexual services from a person he believed was 15 years old and acted upon that agreement until arrested.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code arising from alleged unwanted contact and harassment of a lead guitarist at her church.

The complainant testified that the accused initiated unwanted text messages, entered his vehicle without permission, blocked his vehicle in a parking lot, and engaged in unusual behavior at the church despite repeated warnings from church pastors and police.

The accused testified that she was never given a reason to stop her behavior.

The court found the complainant and Crown witnesses credible and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable.

The court found that the accused was directly told that her contact was unwanted and that her persistent behavior reasonably caused the complainant to fear for his safety.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and also found her fit to stand trial.

The accused was charged with assault and related offences arising from an alleged domestic violence incident on August 3, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused choked, beat, and struck his wife multiple times.

The defence claimed the complainant was the aggressor.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused's evidence not credible on essential points, particularly because contradictory evidence was not put to the Crown's witness.

However, the complainant's evidence also contained inconsistencies, including discrepancies regarding visible injuries observed by police.

The court found a reasonable doubt remained regarding important details of the incident and dismissed the charge.

The accused was convicted of mischief in relation to religious property motivated by religious prejudice or hatred under s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a member of the Shia Muslim faith, attended a mosque during Ramadan while intoxicated, insulted occupants, and urinated on the mosque steps in front of children and arriving families.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 90 days for deterrence purposes.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months probation, reporting to probation, a prohibition on attending the mosque, and 40 hours of community service within 12 months, finding the circumstances unusual and placing the offence at the lower end of the sentencing scale.

The Crown charged the accused with assault causing bodily harm arising from two separate incidents involving disputes over the accused's collection of mannequins.

In the June incident, the accused allegedly threw his wife to the ground, causing a broken leg and bruising.

In the April incident, the accused allegedly placed his hands around his wife's neck.

The accused claimed he was merely protecting his property and that his wife fell accidentally.

The court found the accused not credible, noting his dishonesty about the nature and purpose of his mannequin collection and the implausibility of his account of the incidents.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and consistent with the photographic evidence of injuries.

The court rejected the defence of property argument under section 35 of the Criminal Code as the mannequin was not damaged and the response was disproportionate.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.