Katie Heathcote

On a pre-trial Charter application, the moving party sought exclusion of statements and physical evidence seized from a BMW, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10(b).

The court found a psychological detention, breaches of counsel and silence rights, and an unreasonable search in the manner police compelled production of a key fob.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the moving party’s verbal and non-verbal statements, including the key-fob handover.

The court admitted the drugs, firearm, ammunition, and related physical evidence because they were independently discoverable under a valid vehicle warrant.

The application was allowed in part.

This sentencing decision concerns L.M. and B.W., who were found guilty after trial of failing to provide the necessaries of life to L.M.'s six-year-old daughter, C.M., after she suffered serious burns.

B.W. was also convicted of aggravated assault for causing the burns by spraying hot water on C.M. The court reviews the circumstances of the offences, the backgrounds of the offenders, the impact on the victim, and the applicable sentencing principles.

B.W. received a global sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment, and L.M. received a 14-month conditional sentence followed by probation.

The decision discusses the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in cases involving child victims and the increased maximum sentences for these offences.

The court sentenced Clay Kuzio for dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death, following a fatal high-speed collision.

The court reviewed the tragic circumstances, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the relevant sentencing principles.

After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a 42-month custodial sentence and a driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the need for a proportionate, individualized sentence.

The accused, a father and his common-law partner, were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a six-year-old child, and the partner was additionally charged with aggravated assault.

The child sustained severe burns to her buttocks from hot water while in the care of the accused.

The court found that the partner intentionally caused the burns in an angry outburst and that both accused failed to seek timely medical attention, which constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent parent or caregiver.

Both accused were found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life, and the partner was found guilty of aggravated assault.

This criminal trial concerned W.S., charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and indecent exposure against his underage stepdaughter, S.A. The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her mother, brother, a DNA expert, and a sexual assault nurse.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility due to inconsistencies in her initial statements.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and impressive witness, explaining her delayed and partial disclosures as typical for young victims of trauma.

Corroborating evidence included the defendant being found naked in the complainant's bed and significant DNA evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on all three counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, M.D., was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on whether the complainant, I.F., consented to the sexual activity.

The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and noted her reluctance to acknowledge mutual engagement, which raised reasonable doubt regarding her lack of consent and the accused's knowledge thereof.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, T.M., sought release pending appeal after being convicted of sexually assaulting his intimate partner and choking her, for which he received a four-year sentence.

The application for release was based on an alleged misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding the assessment of evidence and credibility.

The Crown opposed the release, arguing the appeal was frivolous and that detention was necessary in the public interest due to the applicant's extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for intimate partner violence and breaches of court orders.

The court dismissed the application, finding the appeal was frivolous as the alleged misapprehension of evidence was not material to the trial judge's reasoning.

Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant's detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given his history of violence and non-compliance with court orders.