J. Perfetto

The offender, a high school teacher, was convicted of voyeurism after surreptitiously recording videos of female students' cleavage using a pen camera over an 18-month period.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the underage victims, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

Finding that a conditional sentence would not adequately address these principles, the court imposed a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' probation.

The offender was convicted of entering into an arrangement with an undercover police officer to commit sexual interference with a person under 16 years of age.

He challenged the constitutionality of the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court reviewed the gravity of the offence, the offender's high moral blameworthiness, and mitigating factors including his lack of a prior record and genuine remorse.

The court determined that a fit and proper sentence range was 9 to 12 months, concluding that the one-year mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate and therefore constitutional.

A high school teacher was charged with voyeurism after surreptitiously recording female students at school using a concealed pen camera.

The Crown alleged the recordings violated the students’ reasonable expectation of privacy and were made for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that although the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the recordings were made for a sexual purpose.

The videos showed fully clothed students and lacked nudity, zooming, or other clear sexualized context.

As the circumstantial evidence did not establish that a sexual purpose was the only rational inference, the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code arising from sexual activity with a complainant who had been sleeping in another man’s bedroom after drinking alcohol.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented or whether the accused reasonably believed she was consenting, including the possibility that she mistakenly believed the accused was another individual.

The court applied the W.(D.) credibility framework and reviewed evidence from the complainant, the accused, an eyewitness, and forensic experts.

While the judge rejected much of the accused’s testimony and had concerns about aspects of the complainant’s evidence, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown therefore failed to establish the offence on the criminal standard.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The sole issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the police officer had objectively reasonable grounds to support a breath demand under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's findings of fact, which included erratic driving, a strong smell of alcohol, glassy eyes, and an admission of drinking.

The court held that these facts were sufficient to objectively support the officer's subjective belief of impairment, and dismissed the appeal.