Kate Irwin

Sentencing of an accused found guilty by jury of aggravated assault and uttering threats to cause bodily harm, who also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon.

The accused stabbed the victim with a spring-operated knife during a consensual fist fight after threatening him on Facebook.

The court accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day with a house arrest component for the first twelve months, followed by a curfew.

Significant mitigating factors included the accused's extensive rehabilitative efforts addressing severe alcohol addiction, employment stability, family support, and compliance with release conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, ten-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the knife.

The offender, Justin Cassie-Berube, was sentenced for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault related to the death of a five-year-old child, Chloe.

The court found that the offender failed to provide necessities of life and medical attention to Chloe, leading to her death, and had repeatedly abused her.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, and the deliberate failure to seek medical help to avoid legal jeopardy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, young age, and mental health issues, though his lack of true remorse limited mitigation.

A global sentence of 14 years imprisonment was imposed, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused, Justin Cassie-Berube, was charged with six counts relating to the death of a five-year-old girl, including failing to provide necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The judgment detailed the child's deteriorating health due to a bladder rupture and other injuries, and the accused's conscious decision to withhold medical attention due to fear of legal jeopardy from the child's visible bruises.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person, directly contributing to the child's death.

The accused, A.R.-P., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, exposing genitals, and inviting sexual touching against his stepdaughter, E.E., spanning from 2014 to 2018.

The key issues involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly the child victim.

The court applied the principles for assessing child witness testimony, including the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's explanations as preposterous and self-serving.

The accused was convicted on all counts, with further submissions to be heard regarding the application of the Kienapple rule and potential overcharging.

The court determined whether a Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK) constitutes a "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, which would require a special application for its admissibility in sexual assault trials.

The Crown argued it was a record, while the defence contended it was not.

The court found that the SAEK, prepared by a specially trained nurse, falls under the exception for "records made by persons responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the offence." This is because the kit's purpose is to investigate the sexual assault allegation, making the nurse responsible for that part of the investigation.

Consequently, the SAEK is not a "record" under s. 278.1, and no application under s. 278.93 is required for its admission into evidence.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant by banging his head against a wall twice and tearing his lip, requiring eight stitches.

The complainant and accused were in a polygamous marriage under Sharia law.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the injury was self-inflicted or caused by someone else.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by her daughter's testimony.

The complainant's evidence was found to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with his prior affidavit, and motivated by financial and community concerns.

The court concluded the complainant intentionally injured himself after leaving the home and fabricated the assault allegation to gain leverage in family law proceedings and minimize his financial obligations.

The accused, Challa Daoud, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace for 10 firearm-related offences and multiple breaches of prior bail conditions.

The application was based on a purported material change in circumstances, specifically a revised bail plan with two new sureties and increased bond amounts.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting that merely reshuffling sureties or increasing bond amounts does not suffice.

The court upheld the Justice of the Peace's decision to detain the accused on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing a substantial likelihood of reoffending due to a history of 32 convictions for breaching court orders, serious addiction issues, and the gravity of the firearms offences.