Justice P. K. Doody

Following the defendant's conviction for assaulting two women, the Crown applied for an order for an assessment of the defendant's mental condition to determine whether he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court found that the Crown satisfied the requirements under section 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code by establishing reasonable grounds to doubt the defendant's criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The defendant had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had ceased taking his prescribed medication, and was experiencing active delusions and hallucinations at the time of the offences.

The court ordered a 30-day assessment.

Application by defendant Jasmyn Jarrett to join a trial already in progress after she failed to appear on the first day.

The defendant had been arrested on a bench warrant and sought retroactive permission to participate in the trial, having missed the first five days of evidence.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the trial had effectively been severed when the Crown proceeded against the three remaining defendants.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown has discretion to proceed with co-accused and that allowing the defendant to join retroactively would prejudice the other defendants' right to a timely trial and would require the Crown to have led evidence differently.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an incident on February 4, 2018, where the complainant alleged that after initially consenting to sexual intercourse, she asked the defendant to stop, but he continued to engage in sexual activity for a few more thrusts.

The defendant denied continuing after the complainant asked him to stop.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant continued to engage in sexual intercourse after the complainant said she wanted to stop.

The court found significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies with her police statement, limited memory of key events, and the selective provision of text messages to police.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and concluded that the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, alleging that while engaged in consensual sexual intercourse on February 4, 2018, the complainant told him to stop, but he continued to penetrate her briefly before stopping.

The defendant acknowledged the complainant told him to stop but testified he immediately complied.

The court held a hearing under section 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of evidence of other sexual activity and private records relating to the complainant.

The central issue at trial would be whether the defendant stopped when the complainant communicated her withdrawal of consent.

The court admitted certain text messages and Snapchat messages between the parties and the complainant and her friend that directly related to the sexual activity in issue, as they were relevant to the complainant's credibility regarding her account of the events.

However, the court excluded evidence of other sexual activity between the parties occurring on other dates, as such evidence had minimal probative value and would substantially prejudice the complainant's privacy and dignity rights.

The court also excluded a sentence from the complainant's post-incident message to the defendant that the Crown sought to introduce.

Trial management order addressing pre-trial motions in a sexual assault prosecution.

The defendant sought to admit Snapchat messages, text messages, and evidence of other sexual activity of the complainant.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of other sexual activity.

The court established a comprehensive procedural framework and timetable for determining admissibility issues in stages, including determinations of standing, document characterization, and application of statutory tests for admission of sensitive evidence.

Three defendants were charged with twelve offences arising from a shooting incident at a strip mall parking lot in Ottawa on September 1, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Haji Ragab was the shooter, Paraparan was the driver of the getaway vehicle, and Hope was a passenger.

All three were charged with various firearm-related offences.

The trial judge found that while the Crown proved the three defendants were in the vehicle at the scene, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haji Ragab was the shooter or that Paraparan was the driver.

Critically, the Crown also failed to prove that any defendant possessed the firearm, as the weapon was never recovered and the Crown could not establish that the item used was a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code.

All charges were dismissed against all defendants.

The accused brought an application under s. 278.93 (formerly s. 276.1) for a hearing under s. 278.94 (formerly s. 276.2) to determine whether evidence of the complainant's sexual activity other than that forming the subject matter of the sexual assault charges would be admissible under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the accused's application record must be provided to the complainant before the s. 278.94 hearing.

The court held that the complainant is entitled to receive the application record sufficiently in advance of the hearing to allow her to prepare and make meaningful submissions.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual interference with an 11-year-old victim and breach of probation.

The offence constituted an attempted rape occurring only three months after the offender had been placed on probation for a prior sexual interference conviction involving a 13-year-old victim.

The court determined that a deferred custody and supervision order was unavailable because the offence caused serious bodily harm to the victim.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 4 weeks secure custody followed by 2 weeks community supervision and 2 years probation with extensive conditions, including counselling, community service, and participation in culturally-appropriate programming.

The sentence balanced the seriousness of the offence against the offender's Inuit background, tragic personal circumstances, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused was charged with assaulting a person with an imitation weapon, using an imitation firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence of assault with an imitation firearm, and possession of an imitation weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The charges arose from events on November 25, 2016, following an altercation between the accused's friend and the victim's son.

The trial judge found significant credibility issues with the Crown's witnesses, including material discrepancies regarding the distance of the alleged threat, whether words were spoken, and the location of witnesses.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused pointed the imitation firearm at the victim or that he possessed it for the purpose of committing an offence.

All three counts were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.

The Crown conceded the impaired driving charge lacked evidentiary support.

The trial judge dismissed the over-80 charge after finding that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by the Criminal Code.

Multiple unexplained delays occurred: the decision to conduct field sobriety tests at a community policing centre rather than roadside caused an 11-minute delay; a 7-minute delay occurred between arrest and reading of rights; a 5-minute delay occurred before departure to the police station; and a 16-minute delay occurred at the station before the defendant spoke to counsel.

The judge found these delays collectively breached the statutory requirement and the constitutional imperative of immediacy underlying the provision.

The defendant, an Ojibway woman and member of the Serpent River First Nation, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of Schedule I substances (fentanyl and cocaine).

The Crown sought a conviction with a suspended sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, finding that the defendant's circumstances as an Indigenous person with a history of intergenerational trauma, sexual abuse, mental health issues, and addiction warranted a restorative approach rather than punitive measures.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning the first-degree murder of Dady Junior Jean on November 4, 2015.

Four defendants were charged: Dominique P. Chrétien, Johnnie-Dean Locey-Derochie, Candy L. Locey, and Todd S. Turner.

The Crown sought committal of all four on first-degree murder.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit each defendant to trial on first-degree murder, considering the elements of planning and deliberation.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, communications, procurement of a firearm, and coordinated actions, supported reasonable inferences that all four defendants knew of and participated in a planned and deliberate murder.

All four defendants were committed to trial on first-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code to admit a videotaped police interview with a witness who subsequently died.

The witness had been interviewed regarding his role as a taxi driver transporting individuals allegedly involved in a first-degree murder.

The court declined to admit the statement, finding it did not meet the threshold of being credible or trustworthy, and exercising its discretion to refuse admission given that the declarant would be unavailable for cross-examination at trial and the evidence would therefore be inadmissible at trial unless it met the principled hearsay exception standard.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with care and control with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment by the arresting officer and breath analysis results.

The court found that the police failed to conduct the breath tests as soon as practicable, contrary to statutory requirements, thereby eliminating the presumption of identity for the blood alcohol readings.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the totality of circumstances, including video evidence contradicting the officer's testimony regarding the defendant's physical coordination.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused, a Royal Canadian Mint employee of seven years, was convicted after trial of stealing gold from the Mint, conveying gold out of the Mint, possessing property obtained by crime, money laundering, and breach of public trust.

Over approximately five months, the accused stole 22 gold pucks by exploiting security gaps, including camera blind spots and weaknesses in metal detection systems.

He sold 18 pucks to a gold buyer for $130,206.19 and retained four pucks in a safety deposit box.

The stolen gold had a market value between $206,813.93 and $236,358.77.

The accused transferred proceeds to purchase property in Jamaica and a boat in the United States, and made cash withdrawals.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for theft and possession of property obtained by crime as they shared the same factual and legal nexus with the conveying gold conviction.

The court sentenced the accused to 30 months imprisonment concurrent on three counts, imposed a restitution order of $191,040.96, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $190,000 with a 30-month consecutive imprisonment term if unpaid, ordered DNA analysis and registration, and imposed a victim fine surcharge of $600.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting and sexually touching a 13-year-old complainant on December 16, 2009, contrary to sections 151 and 271(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother, denied any physical contact with the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and accepted her account of the sexual assault.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as unreliable, particularly regarding the timing of when the complainant's mother would arrive home and his explanation for the complainant's emotional distress.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The defendant was convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine and related offences following an undercover police operation in Ottawa's market area.

The defendant subsequently brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court found that while the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking at the initial contact, by the time the officer provided an opportunity to commit the offence, reasonable suspicion had been established through the defendant's conduct and statements.

The court also found that the police were engaged in a bona fide inquiry into drug trafficking in a precisely defined geographic area where criminal activity was concentrated.

The application to stay proceedings was dismissed.

A young person was convicted of robbery committed during a home invasion on June 13, 2015.

The defendant, who was 15 at the time of the offence, was among a group that invaded a residence, held the complainant against her will, and ransacked the home stealing property valued at $5,348.23.

The defendant participated by searching for items to steal while the complainant was being held.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a deferred custody order of three months followed by probation, while defence counsel argued that probation alone would be sufficient.

The court found that the statutory conditions for imposing custody were not met, as the offence did not cause serious bodily harm and did not create a substantial likelihood of bodily harm.

The court imposed a 12-month probation order with conditions including restitution, community service, counselling, and a weapons prohibition.

The defendant, an Operator-Refinery at the Royal Canadian Mint, was charged with theft of gold, conveying gold out of the Mint, possession of property obtained by crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and breach of trust by a public official.

The Crown's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant stole gold pucks from the Mint by secreting them on his person and removing them through security checkpoints.

He sold 18 of the stolen pucks to Ottawa Gold Buyers for approximately $138,000 and used the proceeds to fund the purchase of a house in Jamaica and a boat in Florida.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five counts.

A young person was charged with driving while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

The defence raised two issues: whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by a drug.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including the accident, odour of marijuana, the defendant's admission of marijuana consumption, and observed signs of impairment.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Drug Recognition Expert's opinion was given limited weight due to concerns about the reliability of certain indicators relied upon and the significant time delay between the collision and the evaluation.

Both charges were dismissed.