Juan Lopez

Mauricio Aguirre pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to cause death and mischief to property under $5,000.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, and the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

After reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors, including Aguirre’s remorse, compliance with release conditions, and rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a conditional discharge with probation and ancillary orders.

C.N.B. was sentenced after being found guilty of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault against his minor daughter.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, prolonged and repeated abuse, use of weapons, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors were limited due to C.N.B.'s lack of full remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment.

Ancillary orders, including DNA, weapons prohibition, non-communication, and Sex Offender Registry registration, were also issued.

The accused, C.N.B., was charged with 12 counts of assault, assault with a weapon, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault against his minor daughter, V.N. C.N.B. pleaded guilty to a portion of one assault count but denied all other allegations.

The trial focused on credibility, particularly of the child complainant, V.N., and the accused.

The court applied principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found V.N. and her mother, P.C., to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused and his son, C.N., were found not credible.

The court found the accused guilty on all twelve counts, noting that some counts might be subject to the rule against multiple convictions at sentencing.

E.A.V. pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and sexual interference against his 12-year-old stepdaughter, who subsequently became pregnant and gave birth.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including a gross breach of trust, the victim's young age and lack of sexual education, the progressive severity and prolonged period of the assaults, the lack of birth control leading to pregnancy, the religious context, the abuse occurring in the victim's home, frequent threats and humiliation, and the victim's increased vulnerability due to pandemic lockdowns.

The profound physical, emotional, and intergenerational impact on the victim and her family was also highlighted.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea (though attenuated by the overwhelming evidence), the offender's own history of childhood abuse, his rehabilitation potential (sobriety, employment), collateral immigration consequences (likely deportation), and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody due to jail lockdowns.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles.

E.A.V. was sentenced to 18.5 years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and various ancillary orders were imposed.

The defendant was charged with one count of sexual assault against his former wife, involving two touches of her breasts.

The trial focused on assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant, her work assistant, and the defendant.

The court found the complainant's testimony compelling but unreliable due to admitted trauma, inconsistencies, and potential motives related to ongoing family litigation and a prior assault charge against her.

The assistant's testimony also contained inconsistencies and was not considered truly independent.

While the defendant's testimony was found to be rehearsed and implausible, the court ultimately determined that the prosecution had not proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm and mischief to property following a physical altercation with his common-law partner.

The court heard conflicting evidence from the complainant and the defendant.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding credibility assessment and reasonable doubt, the judge found the complainant's testimony lacked specific details regarding the mechanics of the alleged assault and phone damage.

Conversely, the defendant's version of events was deemed credible and plausible, indicating he acted in self-defence and that any injuries or property damage were unintentional.

The court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all charges.

The Crown sought a review of a bail decision that released C.T., who was charged with firearms trafficking.

The Crown argued there was a material change in circumstances (a defaced, loaded firearm registered to C.T. was found with suspected bank robbers), an error of law by the bail justice (mischaracterizing the offences as not involving firearm use), and that the decision was clearly inappropriate.

The court found a material change and an error of law, necessitating a de novo bail hearing.

While the strength of the Crown's case, gravity of the offences, firearm use in trafficking, and potential lengthy imprisonment all favored detention, the court ultimately maintained C.T.'s release, citing his successful four-month house arrest and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic within correctional facilities.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, sexual assault, and forcible confinement arising from an incident on October 31, 2017, in a residential condominium building.

The accused, a custodian at the building, lured the complainant to a secluded stairwell by deception, brandished a knife, and positioned his crotch near her face while restraining her with his forearm.

The complainant resisted and screamed until a neighbor intervened.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on all three counts, determining that the conduct constituted an actual sexual assault (not merely attempted), as the accused deliberately violated the complainant's sexual integrity through the positioning of his genitals near her face in a threatening context, combined with physical restraint.

The accused, Jonathan Vasquez Clase, was found guilty of attempted choking to commit sexual assault and sexual assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the predatory nature of the attack, the victim's fear for her life due to choking, and the significant physical and emotional impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the accused being a first-time offender with employment history and positive character references.

The court also addressed collateral immigration consequences and the principle that lack of remorse from maintaining innocence at trial is not an aggravating factor.

A total sentence of four years and ten months was imposed after credit for bail terms.

The accused, Jonathan Vasquez Clase, was charged with attempted choking to commit sexual assault and sexual assault.

The complainant alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse and choking, while the accused claimed consensual sex and denied choking.

The court assessed credibility, noting the accused's admitted lies to police regarding the sexual encounter and drug use, and the complainant's consistent testimony corroborated by physical evidence of bruising to her wrists and neck.

The court rejected the accused's explanation for lying and found the complainant's lack of consent proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to convictions on both counts.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The registered owner of the vehicle was a one-person corporation owned by the defendant.

The Crown argued that the defendant should be found guilty as the common law owner of the vehicle, alternatively as a party to the offence, or that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court found that the defendant was not the common law owner of the vehicle, as there was no evidence of exclusive possession or dominion and control.

The court also found that the defendant was not a party to the offence, as there was no evidence that he was a director, officer, or agent of the corporation who had omitted to purchase insurance.

Finally, the court found no basis to pierce the corporate veil, as there was no evidence of fraudulent or improper use of the corporation to avoid compliance with the Act.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge arose from surveillance conducted in December 2011 that showed the defendant engaging in activities including driving, making deliveries, and shopping, which the WSIB alleged constituted material changes that should have been reported.

The defendant was found not guilty after the court determined that the Crown had failed to prove the mens rea element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.