Juan Lopez

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference (with the sexual assault conviction stayed under the Kienapple principle) following a trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

The offences involved repeated sexual touching of a complainant between the ages of 13 and 15, who attended a home daycare operated by the appellant's wife.

On appeal, the appellant raised three grounds: (1) improper use of a fabrication finding to bolster the complainant's evidence; (2) failure to expressly reject his denial of the offences under the W.(D.) framework; and (3) misapprehension of the evidence regarding the complainant's alleged motive to lie.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds, finding the fabrication finding was used only as a credibility assessment tool, that the denial was plainly rejected on a holistic reading of the reasons, and that the trial judge clearly understood and implicitly rejected the motive to lie argument.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with a release order in relation to his former intimate partner.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's evidence to be generally credible and reliable, while identifying significant concerns with the complainant's credibility, including exaggerated claims and physical impossibilities in her account.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of any of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

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 accused was charged with multiple offences including human trafficking, procuring, withholding travel documents, and fraud, relating to his involvement with an 18-year-old complainant in the sex trade.

The Crown alleged the accused exercised coercive influence over the complainant's movements, took her earnings under the guise of a fraudulent condo investment scheme, and withheld her identification documents to maintain control.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and accepted the complainant's testimony.

The court found that the accused preyed on the complainant's vulnerabilities and exploited her for financial gain.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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 offender pleaded guilty to arson endangering life after setting a fire in his girlfriend's apartment on October 18, 2019, causing approximately $73,000 in damage.

The offender was intoxicated and under the influence of multiple substances at the time.

He had locked and barricaded the apartment door, impeding rescue efforts.

The offender set the fire in an attempt to commit suicide.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence citing pre-sentence custody, immigration consequences, and COVID-19 pandemic considerations.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months incarceration less 9 months and 3 days pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 months and 27 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The court considered significant mitigating factors including the offender's mental illness, lack of criminal record, remorse, and guilty plea, balanced against aggravating factors including the serious nature of the fire and danger to other building occupants.

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, a condominium custodian, lured the complainant into a secluded stairwell, brandished a knife, and pinned her down while hovering his crotch near her face.

The attack was interrupted by a resident.

At trial, the accused conceded identity and the use of a weapon but disputed that the assault was sexual in nature and that he committed forcible confinement.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding the attack was objectively sexual and that he intentionally restricted the complainant's liberty.

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 offender was sentenced after trial for four counts of sexual interference arising from prolonged sexual abuse of four child complainants within the family, in circumstances involving a marked breach of trust.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society were the dominant sentencing objectives for persistent sexual abuse of vulnerable children by an adult in a position of trust.

After reviewing appellate authorities on historical and intrafamilial child sexual abuse, the court fixed a fit range at two to three years given the absence of intercourse or threats of violence, but the presence of multiple victims, one instance of digital penetration, and profound long-term harm.

A sentence of two years and six months concurrent was imposed, with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, and lifetime s. 161 prohibitions.

The offender pled guilty to importing approximately 2 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of six years, while the defence sought a sentence in the upper reformatory range based on the offender's Aboriginal status.

The court considered the offender's Gladue report, which detailed a history of intergenerational trauma, substance abuse, and mental health issues stemming from his great-grandfather's removal from his Aboriginal family.

Applying Gladue principles, the court found the offender's moral culpability was significantly reduced and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment.

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.