Katherine Corrick

Following a trial, the offender, R.R., was found guilty of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference involving his girlfriend's young daughter, aged eight to nine, over a ten-month period.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence, which are primary considerations for offences against victims under 18.

Aggravating factors included the offender's position of trust, the victim's young age, the multiple occasions of assault, and the offender's prior criminal record for assault and sexual assault against the victim's sisters.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, community involvement, family support, and compliance with judicial interim release.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for sexual interference, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 20-year mandatory weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Mr. Young was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantity of crack cocaine, the offender's lengthy criminal record with prior drug and violent offences, and the fact that the current offences were committed while a previous drug sentence had not expired.

Mitigating factors included strong family support, onerous house arrest bail conditions for nearly 41 months (35 months prohibiting employment, 27 months requiring a surety's presence), and positive rehabilitative efforts.

The court determined that denunciation and deterrence were the predominant sentencing principles, making a conditional sentence inappropriate given the offender's history of breaching release conditions.

After crediting for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, a net sentence of 20 months imprisonment was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a forfeiture order for $5.00.

David Kreindl was charged with multiple counts, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, after shooting J.R. in the face with a flare gun.

The court found Kreindl guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, threatening, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life or wound, maim, or disfigure.

However, the court found him not guilty of attempted murder, as the Crown failed to prove specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the severity of the victim's injuries and the intentional nature of the shooting.

Kreindl was also found guilty of failing to comply with an undertaking and two counts of failing to appear in court.

Joseph Andrews was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized under search warrants, alleging violations of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the search warrants valid and any other breaches minor and not warranting exclusion.

Following the Charter application, the trial proceeded, and the court found Andrews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts based on circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control of the drugs found in his truck and a storage unit.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple offences involving sexual contact with an 11‑year‑old child, including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposure for a sexual purpose.

The court considered the mandatory minimum penalties under the Criminal Code and the principles of denunciation and deterrence applicable to sexual offences against children.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, strong community support, and evidence that the conduct fell toward the lower end of the spectrum for such offences, while aggravating factors included the victim’s young age and the repeated nature of the conduct.

The court rejected the Crown’s request for a sentence above the statutory minimum and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months followed by probation.

Several ancillary orders were also made, including DNA, SOIRA registration, and certain s.161 restrictions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child during the period of his relationship with the child’s mother.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence relating to the accused’s prior convictions for sexual assaults against the complainant’s sisters.

The court admitted certain similar fact evidence concerning assaults against one sister occurring in circumstances closely resembling the allegations in the indictment but excluded other allegations due to concerns about potential collusion or prejudice.

The accused also brought a lost evidence application alleging a prior videotaped statement from the complainant had been destroyed; the court found no such statement existed and dismissed the application.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony, accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two accused were charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence after police discovered a loaded handgun and over-capacity magazine in a closet in their shared apartment during execution of a search warrant.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to establish knowledge and control.

The defence argued that guests attending a party at the apartment had access to the room and closet and may have placed the firearm there, and adduced alternate suspect evidence relating to individuals with prior firearm convictions.

Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the framework in R. v. W. (D.), the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the firearm.

Both accused were acquitted.

Following conviction after trial for break and enter into a dwelling house, robbery, and aggravated assault arising from a home invasion, the court imposed sentence.

The offender, a youthful first offender with no criminal record and strong prospects for rehabilitation, participated in a deliberate home invasion in which the victim sustained serious injuries and psychological harm.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for violent home invasions while also considering mitigating factors including youth, family support, lack of prior record, and nearly 42 months of strict house arrest on bail.

After assessing aggravating and mitigating circumstances and granting credit for stringent bail conditions and brief pre‑trial custody, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from his representation of a corporation in an injunction proceeding.

The plaintiff cross-moved to amend the statement of claim to add the corporation as a plaintiff after the limitation period had expired, arguing the omission was a misnomer.

The court held that the omission was a deliberate decision rather than a misnaming and therefore could not be corrected after the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On the summary judgment motion, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff personally suffered damages and held that claims relating to corporate losses belonged to the corporation.

Summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

Following conviction after trial for arson causing damage to property and arson to property under ss. 433 and 434.1 of the Criminal Code, the court determined a fit sentence.

The offender set fire to items in his apartment within an occupied multi‑unit residential building, creating significant risk to residents and firefighters and causing property damage.

Aggravating factors included the risk to occupants and first responders, the locked apartment door delaying entry, and the removal of a smoke detector.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, mental health struggles, compliance with bail conditions, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed 15 months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation, ordered a DNA sample and a weapons prohibition, and declined to order restitution due to the offender’s inability to pay.

Sentencing decision following a jury conviction for fraud over $5,000 arising from a long‑running mortgage investment Ponzi scheme that defrauded 33 victims of more than $7.5 million.

The offender solicited investments through misleading promotional materials and used investor funds primarily to pay earlier investors and finance personal expenses and an affluent lifestyle.

Many victims were elderly retirees who suffered devastating financial and psychological consequences.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large‑scale fraud involving breach of trust.

A seven‑year penitentiary sentence was imposed before credit, with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody reducing the custodial term to three years, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture equal to the fraud amount.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to robbery and aggravated assault arising from a violent group attack on a neighbour accused of "snitching." The offender and a co‑accused repeatedly punched, kicked, and stomped the victim, causing severe injuries including fractures requiring surgery and prolonged hospitalization, while also stealing the victim’s cell phone.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim, the retaliatory motive, the severity of the injuries, and the significant impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, relative youth, guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and parity principles, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, possession of a prohibited device, use of a firearm without reasonable precaution, possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order, and several probation breaches.

The offences arose after the offender ran through a residential townhouse complex in the afternoon carrying a loaded handgun following a shooting incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the serious risk posed to the public and the offender’s significant criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

Applying sentencing principles under the Criminal Code and considering comparable jurisprudence, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment before credit for pre‑sentence custody.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for 858 days of pre‑trial detention.

The accused jointly applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings on the basis that their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) had been violated.

The overall delay between arrest and scheduled trial was approximately 999 days (nearly 33 months).

Applying the analytical framework from R. v. Morin, the court assessed waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

After deducting defence and neutral delay, the court found approximately 550.5 days (about 18.08 months) of Crown and institutional delay, which was only slightly above the guideline range.

Given the seriousness of the charges and the finding that most prejudice arose from the existence of the charges rather than delay itself, the court concluded the accused had not established a Charter breach.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and probation-related offences after running through a residential townhouse complex carrying a loaded prohibited handgun following a shooting incident.

He admitted possessing the firearm but argued he did so out of necessity after hearing gunfire and fearing for his life.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation, finding his testimony inconsistent with surveillance footage and other evidence, and concluded he armed himself to seek out the attackers rather than escape danger.

The defence of necessity therefore had no factual foundation.

The court convicted the accused of multiple firearm possession offences, breach of prohibition and probation orders, and using a firearm without reasonable precaution.

The accused was charged with robbery while armed with an imitation firearm.

The Crown case depended primarily on eyewitness identification by the complainant, including a photo line-up identification and an in-court identification.

The court held that the photo line-up was problematic because the accused was the only person displaying distinctive features previously described by the witness, including a forehead scar and afro hairstyle.

Given the well‑recognized dangers of eyewitness identification and the lack of confirmatory evidence, the court assigned little weight to the identification evidence.

The Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

The accused applied to exclude recordings of telephone conversations made while he was an inmate in a federal penitentiary, arguing that the interception violated his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.

The calls had been recorded by correctional authorities and later seized by police pursuant to a search warrant.

The court held that the accused failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications, given institutional policies, warning signs, and signed acknowledgments indicating calls could be monitored or recorded.

The presence of a third party on the calls further undermined any claim of privacy.

As a result, the court found no Charter breach and declined to exclude the evidence.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police executing a search warrant observed her at a window and later located a pink pencil case outside containing approximately 135 grams of methamphetamine packaged in multiple baggies.

The court accepted the evidence of a police officer who observed a flash of pink leaving the accused’s hand and later recovered the case below the apartment window.

Defence evidence asserting that a window screen made it impossible to throw the case outside was rejected as inconsistent and unreliable.

While the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and knowingly discarded the drugs, the Crown failed to prove that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, as there was no additional indicia of trafficking discovered during the search.

The accused was therefore convicted of simple possession but acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was tried on multiple drug trafficking counts and possession of proceeds of crime after police executed a search warrant at a shared apartment and discovered drugs, cash, packaging materials, and a hidden stash of heroin in a modified Nestea container in the kitchen.

The Crown relied heavily on the testimony of a co‑accused who claimed the accused owned the heroin.

The court found the co‑accused's evidence unreliable due to inconsistent statutory declarations and a clear motive to implicate the accused to obtain favourable treatment from the Crown.

In the absence of independent confirmatory evidence connecting the accused to the heroin stash, the court held that possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of heroin, oxycodone, and MDMA trafficking counts but convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime based on drugs, scales, packaging materials, and cash found in his bedroom.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of fraud over $5,000, using a forged document, and three counts of failing to comply with recognizance conditions.

The offences arose from a 56‑day stay at a hotel during which the offender amassed over $22,000 in charges and attempted payment with a forged cheque while breaching release conditions prohibiting computer use and requiring residence at a specified address.

The offender had an extensive criminal record for similar fraud‑related offences and repeated breaches of court orders.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public, finding numerous aggravating factors including the prolonged and planned nature of the fraud and the offender’s persistent recidivism.

Consecutive sentences were imposed totaling four years’ imprisonment consecutive to an existing sentence, along with restitution to the victim hotel.