Kate Matthews

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 applicant, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Stinchcombe application seeking disclosure of police documents related to two search warrants.

The defence alleged fraud in obtaining the second warrant, specifically fabricating a confidential informant (CI #6).

The court dismissed the application for disclosure of the "SMEAC" report (finding it irrelevant to guilt/innocence and protected by public interest privilege), confidential informant handling notes for CI #1 (due to informer privilege and lack of reliance by the affiant), and handling notes for CI #6 (finding no sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish relevance for a Garofoli application, despite alleged irregularities in the search).