Kathy Nedelkopoulos

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including robbery with a firearm, after robbing a taxi driver and a pedestrian using a BB gun.

The accused admitted to the acts but raised the defence of extreme intoxication due to a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused possessed the requisite intent and that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code barred the defence of extreme self-induced intoxication.

However, the court found that the BB gun was broken and could not be readily adapted to fire, meaning it did not meet the definition of a 'firearm' under section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the firearm-specific offences but convicted of two counts of robbery.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to comply with a recognizance prohibiting contact with a former intimate partner.

The breaches occurred on several occasions, including instances where contact was consensual and one incident involving attendance at a location where the complainant was present.

The court considered the offender’s prior criminal record for domestic-related violence and previous breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric issues and limited rehabilitation prospects.

While some breaches were mitigated by the complainant’s consent or near-technical circumstances, the court emphasized the importance of enforcing recognizance conditions intended to protect vulnerable partners.

Applying the step principle and totality principle, the court imposed consecutive custodial sentences totaling seven months, followed by probation and a victim surcharge.

The two accused, both young first offenders, were convicted by a jury for their roles in a robbery and aggravated assault.

The female accused lured the victim to a parking lot where he was attacked by the male accused and an unknown third party wielding a metal baton.

The female accused was convicted of robbery as an aider but acquitted of aggravated assault.

The male accused was convicted of both offences.

The court weighed the serious nature of the offences against the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and strict bail conditions.

The female accused was sentenced to 45 days intermittent imprisonment and the male accused to 90 days intermittent imprisonment (after pre-sentence credit), both followed by two years of probation.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for fraud over $5,000 and theft over $5,000 arising from renovation contracts with an elderly homeowner.

The court found the offender deliberately exploited the victim’s vulnerability, grossly overcharged for unnecessary or incomplete work, and retained more than $300,000 while leaving the residence in an almost uninhabitable condition.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the theft conviction was conditionally stayed because it arose from the same factual and legal nexus as the fraud offence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in cases involving exploitation of elderly victims, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day.

A restitution order was also granted requiring repayment of $215,773 representing the victim’s financial loss attributable to the fraud.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and administering a stupefying substance against a child complainant over a period in 2008–2009.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the child complainant, as no other witnesses observed the alleged offences.

The court found significant reliability and credibility concerns in the complainant’s evolving statements, communication difficulties, inconsistencies, and possible external influence.

The complainant’s mother, the only potential source of corroborative evidence, was also found to be a highly unreliable witness.

The court concluded that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample after a motor vehicle collision.

At the police station, the accused, who suffered from a panic disorder, was subjected to a routine level three strip search before being lodged in a cell.

The court found that the strip search violated section 8 of the Charter, as there were no reasonable and probable grounds to justify it and it was conducted merely as a matter of routine policy.

Concluding that the police conduct demonstrated a systemic disregard for established constitutional limits on strip searches, the court held that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter to preserve the integrity of the justice system.