Kate Matthews

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended the continuation of the Detention Order, which the accused supported.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the same conditions, including a prohibition on intoxicants, while noting his progress in community living.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while driving at excessive speeds to show off to his passenger.

The passenger suffered catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including permanent brain damage.

The Crown sought 2.5 to 3 years in a penitentiary, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the deliberate and highly dangerous nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a 6-year driving prohibition.

Jason Georgopoulos was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while attempting to pass a streetcar at high speed, seriously injuring his administrative assistant.

The defendant brought two pre-trial applications: a stay of proceedings for delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter (Jordan motion) and, alternatively, a stay for lost evidence (Infotainment unit data).

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the delay was not unreasonable after accounting for defence-caused delay and COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances, and that the alleged lost evidence either never existed or would not have impacted the trial's outcome.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and concluded that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The accused, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim once in the chest during an argument while heavily intoxicated.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, arguing the offence was near-murder, while the defence proposed four to seven years.

Applying Gladue principles and weighing the accused's remorse, guilty plea, and history of trauma against the aggravating factors of intoxication and use of a weapon, the court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought to have Patrick Kanate declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence following his guilty plea to multiple offences committed while detained, including hostage-taking and assaulting a peace officer.

The court reviewed Kanate's extensive criminal history, institutional misconduct, and a psychiatric assessment which diagnosed antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders, noting his ambivalence towards changing his lifestyle.

Despite considering Gladue principles and the systemic factors impacting Indigenous offenders, the court found that Kanate presented a high and intractable risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court declared him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

Sentencing for a youthful Indigenous offender who pleaded guilty to multiple child sexual exploitation offences arising from possession of over 45,000 child pornography images and videos, online luring of underage users, voyeuristic recordings, redistribution of child sexual abuse material, and participation in sexual abuse live streams.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount under s. 718.01 and Friesen, but also gave meaningful effect to s. 718.2(e) and Gladue principles, recognizing family and community dislocation, cultural disconnection, remorse, guilty pleas, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court found numerous serious aggravating factors, including the ages and number of victims, the volume and nature of the material, active encouragement of abuse, and financial participation in live-stream exploitation.

A global sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by 617 days for pre-sentence custody, harsh custodial conditions, and stringent bail terms, together with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA order and a 20-year s. 161 prohibition.

Jaryd Bellas-Menzie pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

Police investigation revealed 248 unique images and 32 videos on his phone, and 2 images on his laptop, primarily depicting pre-pubescent females in explicit sexual activity.

The Crown sought a 9-12 month custodial sentence and ancillary orders, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 6-9 months custodial.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the paramountcy of denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences, and mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, genuine remorse, and a psychological assessment indicating low risk of sexual re-offending and underlying trauma.

The court imposed a six-month custodial sentence, followed by two years of probation, a 10-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and specific internet conditions under s. 161(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, rejecting a conditional sentence as inappropriate for such offences.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his cousin after providing her with a substance she believed was crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 18 months to 2 years.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victim, the accused's lack of a prior record, his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated on unrelated charges, and his Indigenous background as detailed in a Gladue report.

The accused was sentenced to two years plus one day in a penitentiary, to be served consecutively to his current sentence.

Mark Holland was convicted of sexual assault from 2008.

The sentencing was significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 16 months imprisonment, while the defence sought "time served" or a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the constitutionality of s. 742.1(f)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which precludes conditional sentences for sexual assault prosecuted by indictment.

The judge found this section to infringe ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared it of no force or effect, following R. v. R.S. and R. v. Sharma.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the extraordinary delay, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence, to be served in the community, along with other standard orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition).

The accused, J.B., was charged with sexual assault and uttering death threats against his cousin, C.B. The alleged sexual assault occurred in September 2017, after C.B. ingested a substance provided by J.B. and blacked out.

C.B. testified she awoke to find J.B. sexually assaulting her.

The Crown relied heavily on C.B.'s testimony, while the defence challenged her credibility and reliability due to intoxication and delayed reporting.

The court found C.B.'s evidence regarding the sexual assault credible and reliable, despite her intoxication and initial disbelief, partly due to J.B.'s subsequent actions (asking about pregnancy).

However, the court found the evidence regarding the death threats, primarily from C.B.'s mother (X.B.), to be vague, imprecise, and unreliable.

The accused, a 47-year-old Indigenous man with a lengthy criminal record, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the victim in an unprovoked attack.

The court considered Gladue factors but prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the accused's history of violence and non-compliance with court orders.

The accused was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh pandemic conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 1297 days.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the victim once on the neck, causing a fatal brain hemorrhage.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine disputed facts for sentencing.

The court found that the accused meant to cause serious bodily harm but did not have the requisite intent for murder.

The court rejected claims of provocation and found insufficient evidence that intoxication played a mitigating role, concluding the unprovoked attack occurred in very aggravating circumstances.

The accused, an Indigenous man with significant health issues including kidney failure, pleaded guilty to defrauding an Aboriginal Health Access Centre of $59,901.70 while serving as its Treasurer.

The court considered Gladue factors, the accused's health, and the devastating impact of the fraud on the organization.

A 12-month conditional sentence was imposed, followed by two years of probation, along with orders for full restitution and a lifetime prohibition from holding positions of financial authority.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault causing bodily harm, attempting to choke, forcible confinement, and uttering a threat to cause death against a sex trade worker.

The court considered the brutal and unprovoked nature of the attack, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the severe physical and psychological impact.

The court also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, family support, and the potential collateral consequence of deportation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, less 10 months of pre-sentence credit, leaving 5 years and 2 months to serve.

The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The defence sought a long-term offender designation.

The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.

Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.

Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.

The accused, a nightclub promoter, was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two different complainants at different nightclubs in 2008.

The Crown applied to admit the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence across both counts, which the court dismissed due to insufficient similarity and prejudicial effect.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, finding the accused's exculpatory evidence contrived and unreliable.

The court found the accused guilty on Count 1, accepting the first complainant's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court acquitted the accused on Count 2, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the second complainant's identification of the accused due to her inability to recall his distinctive tattoos.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and touching a person under 16 for a sexual purpose.

The case involved conflicting testimonies from the complainant, the accused, and a third witness (P.L.K.).

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis for assessing evidence in criminal cases.

While the court did not entirely disbelieve the complainant, significant inconsistencies and exaggerations in her testimony regarding material facts of the assault and immediate aftermath raised reasonable doubt.

The evidence of the accused and P.L.K. also had credibility issues.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Paul Whiteley Langis was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000, totaling approximately $80,000, committed against his employer (two Wendy's restaurants) through manipulation of accounting software and misuse of a corporate credit card.

The offences involved a breach of trust, planning, and sophistication, and were committed while the employer was dealing with a serious illness.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust, significant impact on the victim, and lack of remorse, alongside mitigating factors including the offender being a first-time offender with a stable family and positive character references.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months' incarceration, a restitution order of $40,000, and a lifetime prohibition from employment involving financial authority over others.

The Crown brought an application under section 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code to remand the respondent for an assessment to determine whether he should be declared a dangerous or long-term offender.

The respondent had recently been convicted of two counts of sexual assault and had a lengthy criminal record including prior sexual offences.

The court reviewed the respondent's history, psychological reports, and Gladue factors, concluding that there was a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences of his actions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender and ordered the assessment.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the victim suffered a severe stab wound to the arm during a gathering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony, which the court found unreliable due to his high level of intoxication and admission of giving false evidence.

Relying instead on the testimony of another witness present, the court concluded it could not exclude the reasonable possibility that the stabbing was accidental.

The accused was found not guilty.