J. Strasberg

The applicant sought leave under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to proceed to a jury hearing to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for a life sentence imposed for first degree murder.

The court applied the post‑2011 threshold under s. 745.61 requiring the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the period of parole ineligibility.

Although the applicant demonstrated positive institutional conduct and program participation during incarceration, psychological assessments raised concerns about his failure to accept full responsibility and refusal to identify accomplices involved in the offence.

Considering the statutory criteria under s. 745.63, including the brutal nature of the murder, victim impact evidence, and lack of genuine accountability, the court concluded that a unanimous jury would not likely grant relief.

The application was dismissed with leave to reapply after five years.

Criminal prosecution arising from the possession, production, advertising, sale, import and export of films marketed as nudist films depicting boys.

The court held that numerous films and related images were child pornography because their dominant characteristic was the depiction of sexual organs and buttocks of persons under 18 for a sexual purpose, applying an objective contextual analysis under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted an officially induced error argument in part, finding that state advice in 2006 that certain films were lawful barred conviction for five specific films later found to be child pornography.

The accused was convicted on multiple child pornography and proceeds counts, but acquitted of the criminal organization count.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including three prior sexual assaults, and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and severe substance abuse issues.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to his pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and failure to control his sexual impulses.

However, the court concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public, imposing a determinate sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10, as the police questioning at his home did not constitute a search or psychological detention.

However, the court found breaches of s. 9, due to an arbitrary three-day detention based on faulty police information, and s. 7, due to mistreatment in custody including the denial of medication for his obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Despite these breaches, the court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the prejudice could be adequately addressed through other remedies, such as a sentence reduction if convicted.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder of a police officer and attempted murder of another, sought permission under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to have a jury consider reducing his 25‑year parole ineligibility period.

At the pre‑screening stage under s. 745.61, the court had to determine whether there was a substantial likelihood that the application would succeed.

The judge reviewed the statutory criteria in s. 745.63, including the applicant’s character, institutional conduct, the nature of the offence, victim impact, and other relevant factors such as remorse and a deportation order.

Although the applicant demonstrated some institutional progress, the court found significant concerns regarding the genuineness of his rehabilitation and emphasized the extreme seriousness of the offence.

The judge concluded that the record did not establish a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the parole ineligibility period.