2 total
A threat to disseminate intimate images to extort sexual intercourse is not a serious personal injury offence precluding a conditional sentence.
The accused pleaded guilty to extortion under section 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.
He threatened to disseminate intimate images of a young female complainant unless she engaged in sexual intercourse with him.
The Crown sought 9 to 12 months custody plus probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months or alternatively 90 days intermittent jail.
The central issue was whether the offence constituted a "serious personal injury offence" that would preclude a conditional sentence.
The court found that the threats, while abhorrent and extortionate, did not constitute violence or attempted violence as contemplated by the legislation, distinguishing the case from robbery or assault cases involving weapons.
The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including 12 months house arrest, followed by 21 months probation.
A valid breath demand by an arresting officer is a continuing demand that does not require the breath technician to form independent grounds.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.
Following a trial with a blended voir dire, the court considered whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand and whether the breath technician was required to have independent grounds.
The court found that the arresting officer had sufficient grounds based on observations of erratic driving, physical indicators of impairment, and odour of alcohol.
The court held that the breath demand was valid and that the breath technician need not have independent grounds, as the demand is a continuing one made by the arresting officer and administered by the technician in an agency capacity.
