Kathleen Kealey

On a pre-trial application under ss. 276 and 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code, the accused sought to adduce prior-conduct evidence and to classify various defence-held materials as non-records.

The court held the proposed sexual-history evidence did not satisfy s. 276(2), finding it invited impermissible twin-myth reasoning and was not proper rebuttal evidence.

On the record-screening issue, the court applied the J.J. framework and concluded the disputed videos, emails, and photographs did not contain intimate or highly personal information sufficient to engage the statutory regime.

Only police reports were found to be records.

The court also barred Crown use at trial of materials determined to be non-records that surfaced through the defence application for directions.

N.G. was convicted by a jury of 13 sexual offences against his four biological daughters, committed over approximately two decades (2001-2019).

This decision addresses his sentencing.

The court considered the severe impact on the victims, the breach of trust by the offender, and the prolonged nature of the abuse as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included N.G. being a first-time offender, his employment history, community involvement, and low risk of re-offending.

The court imposed a total sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives, and issued several ancillary orders including DNA sample, SOIRA registration, firearms prohibition, and non-contact orders.

This judgment concerns the sentencing of an accused (JG) convicted of sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court applied the sentencing range established in R. v. AJK, which sets a starting point of at least three years in the penitentiary for penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing that an intimate partner relationship is an aggravating factor due to breach of trust.

Despite numerous mitigating factors, including JG being a first-time offender with strong community support and a low risk of reoffence, the court found no "highly mitigating factor" sufficient to depart below the three-year threshold.

Consequently, JG was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary.

Additionally, the court declined to issue a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, finding that JG's low risk of reoffence and the disproportionate impact of such an order on him outweighed the public interest in registration, in accordance with the amended Criminal Code provisions post-R. v. Ndlovu.

The accused, Gabriel Bogdanov, faced charges of possessing crack cocaine and powder cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 (unreasonable search), s. 9 (arbitrary detention), and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the police search of his vehicle, purportedly based on the smell of cannabis, was unlawful due to contradictory and illogical police testimony regarding the odour and the presence of cannabis residue.

The detention and subsequent arrest were deemed arbitrary, and there was a significant delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis, the court determined that the police conduct constituted a flagrant disregard of Charter rights.

Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches was excluded, leading to the dismissal of all charges against the accused.

JG was charged with one count of sexual assault against his former spouse, CG, occurring between February 21 and 23, 2021.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) framework.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory of events and prior statements to police.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent to the sexual activity, finding the accused's actions reckless and willfully blind.

The court rejected the defence's argument that the complainant's initial characterization of the events as "manipulation" or delay in reporting negated the lack of consent, noting that such reactions can be common in close relationships.

The accused was found guilty.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a 39-year-old man convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his 67-year-old uncle.

The unprovoked attack resulted in significant injuries, including two knocked-out teeth and ongoing anxiety for the victim.

The court considered the Crown's request for a custodial sentence (4-6 months) and the defence's proposal for a conditional sentence.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the victim's vulnerability, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence (four months house arrest), three years probation, restitution, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing the offender's lack of prior record, pro-social behaviour, and the principles of restraint and rehabilitation.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of Assault Cause Bodily Harm against the defendant, Troy Riopelle, for an incident involving his uncle, Terry Bandy, where Bandy lost two teeth.

Riopelle claimed self-defence, while Bandy alleged an unprovoked attack stemming from a long-standing family dispute over a mobile home park.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The judge disbelieved the defendant's testimony, finding it contrived and paradoxical, and accepted the complainant's and an eyewitness's accounts, despite some inconsistencies in the latter.

The court found the defendant guilty, concluding that the assault was an intentional act motivated by the family feud and the defendant's anger over the complainant's presence in the park.

This trial concerned a custody and access dispute between the applicant father and respondent mother regarding their child, D. The father sought joint custody and a week-about parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court considered the child's views, which favored a week-about arrangement, and the parents' ability to communicate and cooperate.

The court granted joint custody and a week-about parenting schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The mother was granted final decision-making authority for education and medical/health issues in case of disagreement.

The father's request to add his surname to the child's name was denied.

No child support was ordered given the parties' respective incomes.

Mobility was restricted to Ottawa, and travel outside Canada required mutual consent.

The Crown brought an application seeking to vacate a preliminary hearing date scheduled for October 29, 2019, and to remand the accused to Superior Court unless he re-elected to be tried in Ontario Court of Justice.

The application arose from amendments to sections 535 and 536 of the Criminal Code (Bill C-75) that came into force on September 19, 2019, limiting preliminary inquiries to cases where the accused faces a maximum penalty of 14 years or more.

The Crown argued the amendments should apply retrospectively to all pending cases, including the accused's case where the maximum penalty was less than 14 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the amendments are purely procedural, they cannot be adapted to pending cases where an accused has already elected trial in Superior Court and requested a preliminary hearing.

The respondent brought a motion for a temporary order granting her sole custody or, alternatively, access to the children.

The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte order for sole custody due to concerns about the respondent's mental health and a potential relocation.

The court maintained the applicant's temporary custody but found insufficient evidence to justify continued supervised access, particularly given its limited availability and negative impact on the children's relationship with the respondent.

The court ordered a phased expansion of unsupervised access for the respondent, while prohibiting her from removing the children from Renfrew County.

The accused was charged with mischief under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for wilfully damaging an exterior door at his ex-wife's residence on November 10, 2017.

The accused attended early for a scheduled child custody exchange and, after being refused early pickup, allegedly kicked and banged on the door.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony that the accused caused damage through persistent kicking.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was boorish and persistent, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wilfully or recklessly caused the damage.

The accused was acquitted.

The parties reached an agreement on the majority of terms for the moving party's supervised access to the children.

The court ordered the release of trust funds, payment of spousal support to the responding party, and established a detailed supervised access schedule with specified supervisors and guidelines.

The moving party was awarded costs of the motion fixed at $7,500, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.