Katherine Spensieri

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and indecent exposure against his daughter when she was between 10 and 12 years old.

The offences occurred during his parenting time while the victim was isolated and vulnerable.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 18 months to 2 years less a day.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the devastating impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 3 years in a penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration and a s. 161 prohibition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and the result of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

He alleged that his counsel forced him to sign a damaging affidavit for a s. 276 application and improperly advised him about the trial judge's potential bias.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, including text messages and counselling records.

The court concluded that the appellant failed to establish professional incompetence or a miscarriage of justice.

The defendant, D.S., was sentenced after being found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and indecent exposure against a child.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 3 years.

The court applied sentencing principles for offences against children, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, as guided by the Criminal Code and R. v. Friesen.

Aggravating factors included the victim's young age (8-9), the defendant's position of trust, and the significant impact on the victim and her family.

The defendant's alcohol use was not considered a mitigating factor.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years in a penitentiary, along with ancillary orders.

The Crown applied to revoke A.H.'s bail post-conviction for criminal harassment and attempted abduction, pending sentencing and a potential dangerous/long-term offender application.

The Crown argued for revocation on secondary (public safety) and tertiary (public confidence) grounds, citing an outdated threat assessment and the gravity of the offences.

The defence contended the threat assessment was stale and that revoking bail would impede A.H.'s ability to prepare for upcoming legal proceedings.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding no new facts to justify revocation, noting A.H.'s consistent compliance with strict bail conditions for over two years, and reiterating that post-conviction bail revocation is an exception, not the rule.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Ommema Ibeto.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, S.B., given significant inconsistencies and memory issues over time.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to the accused's testimony.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and incredible, leading to a finding of not guilty.

Brandon Lake pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The collision occurred while he was driving at excessive speed and had failed to take his prescribed seizure medication, despite a known history of epilepsy and prior driving suspensions related to his medical condition.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less one day and a driving prohibition of at least 25 years.

The defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court found Lake's moral blameworthiness to be very high due to his disregard for license conditions and medical treatment.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given his history of non-compliance and the risk to public safety.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day custody, a 10-year driving prohibition, a s. 109 order for 10 years, a DNA order, and a s. 743.21 order.

The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Anthony Holtorf, in a criminal trial for criminal harassment and child luring.

The evidence consisted of a 2008 peace bond and a 2015 guilty plea, both related to similar incidents of approaching young, unsupervised girls.

The Crown argued the evidence was probative of mens rea and to rebut anticipated innocent explanation defences.

The defence argued the evidence was remote, dissimilar, and highly prejudicial.

The court, applying the R. v. Handy framework, found significant similarities in the pattern of behaviour, despite temporal gaps and minor dissimilarities.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence, in establishing a pattern of behaviour and intent, outweighed its prejudicial effect, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The Crown's application to admit the similar fact evidence was granted.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and child luring after allegedly approaching young girls in a park.

Police placed him under investigative detention, searched him, and later arrested him, conducting a strip search and a search of his vehicle incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breaches, concluding the searches were lawful and justified by safety concerns.

While the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in fully advising the accused of his right to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's interest in adjudicating serious offences involving children on their merits.

The accused, B.M., pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on E.N., committed between November 2015 and November 2016, when E.N. was 15 years old and B.M. was 33-34.

The incidents involved fellatio and vaginal intercourse, occurring at the family business where B.M. was a long-time employee and E.N. worked.

The court found B.M. to be in a position of trust and engaged in grooming behavior.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less one day, while the defence proposed 12-15 months.

The court, emphasizing the gravity of sexual offenses against children and the high moral culpability of the offender, imposed a sentence of 36 months (3 years) custody, along with a 10-year s. 109 order, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a s. 743.21 order, exceeding the Crown's submission.

The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to stop after an accident causing death, contrary to section 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The victim was struck and killed, and the defendant subsequently removed her purse from his vehicle and discarded it, delaying her identification and family notification.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and lack of criminal record, and aggravating factors including the disposal of the victim's purse, prior Highway Traffic Act convictions, and the substantial victim impact.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence, imposing a 12-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year section 109 order, a DNA order, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The accused was tried on multiple sexual assault-related counts involving three complainants, including allegations arising from a blindfolded Play-Doh game, requests to untie swim trunks, and a truth or dare game.

The court refused the Crown’s cross-count similar fact evidence application, holding that the incidents lacked sufficient similarity and had very limited probative value.

Applying the criminal standard of proof, the court found material inconsistencies, memory frailties, and alternative reasonable inferences that prevented the Crown from proving the acts and sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence relating to the final incident was found so unreliable that it would be unsafe to convict.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on charges of invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault arising from two alleged incidents involving a child complainant related through marriage.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven that the alleged events actually occurred.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant and her brother in detail, applying the governing approach to child witness credibility and the limited use of prior consistent statements.

While recognizing that delayed disclosure and post-incident behaviour could not undermine credibility through stereotype-based reasoning, the court found material inconsistencies within the complainant's evidence and significant conflicts between the siblings' accounts.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.