Kellie Hutchison

Juan-Manuel Guevara was found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a dated criminal record and the firearm's presence in a public place, and mitigating factors such as strong family support, pro-social activities, and good rehabilitation prospects.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months, concurrent for the cocaine possession, with credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 37 months and 1 day.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The accused was convicted at trial of five offences arising from his attempt to purchase sexual services from two 14-year-old girls.

Following conviction, the accused applied to reopen the case, arguing that late disclosure and failure to disclose certain documents deprived him of the ability to make full answer and defence.

Specifically, the defence contended that disclosure related to a second production order was not adequately provided, which may have prevented a Charter challenge to the admissibility of evidence obtained from that order.

The Crown argued that disclosure was provided in a timely manner and that the defence had notice of the availability of further disclosure.

The court dismissed the application to reopen, finding that the rigorous test for reopening after verdict had not been met.

The accused was convicted at trial of communicating via telecommunication to facilitate child prostitution and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18 years old.

The accused responded to an online prostitution advertisement, was informed the girl was 15 years old, engaged in graphic sexual discussions, negotiated price, and attended a hotel to complete the transaction where he was met by police.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 months imprisonment followed by two years probation with strict conditions, rejecting the defence submission for an intermittent sentence and conditional sentence based on exceptional family circumstances.

The court found that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount in child abuse cases and that the accused's moral blameworthiness was high given his knowledge of the victim's age.

This is a second section 11(b) Charter application challenging delay in criminal proceedings.

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from a focused fact situation.

Following conviction at trial in June 2017, numerous post-verdict applications were brought, including entrapment, Kienapple, and constitutional challenges.

The court found that while the overall timeline extended from March 2016 to August 2018, the case moved expeditiously at every stage, with all parties taking active steps to minimize delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The defendant brought two applications to re-open trial proceedings following conviction.

The first application sought to challenge the admissibility of text messages on the basis that they were intercepted without authorization under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

This argument had been rejected by multiple appellate courts and trial courts.

The second application sought to re-open the entrapment hearing based on newly disclosed production order data showing the volume of responses to undercover police advertisements.

The court found that neither application met the legal test for re-opening and dismissed both applications.

The accused was charged with two counts of child luring contrary to section 172.1(2), one count of communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from a person under 18 years under section 286.1(2), and two counts of arranging a sexual offence with a child via telecommunication under section 172.2(2).

The Crown's case was based on an undercover investigation (Project Raphael) where an officer posed as a minor and engaged in text conversations with the accused.

The sole issue at trial was identification: whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who engaged in the text conversation with the officer, given that the phone used to send the messages was never recovered.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including cellphone tower records, the timing and content of messages, and the circumstances of the accused's arrest, proved identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.

The Crown applied to determine whether a provincial court has jurisdiction to revisit the constitutionality of a law after a Superior Court has issued a declaration of invalidity pursuant to section 52 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown argued that despite prior declarations finding mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional, courts of coordinate jurisdiction may continue to consider the same issue constrained by principles of comity.

The court held that a section 52 declaration is a unique constitutional remedy that renders a law of no force and effect in the province and is binding on all parties and courts.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of offences contrary to sections 172 and 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

Following conviction, the accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court considered whether the Jordan presumptive ceiling applies to post-verdict entrapment applications and whether the overall delay breached section 11(b).

The court held that the Jordan ceiling applies only to the end of trial and does not extend to post-trial proceedings.

The court further found no breach of section 11(b) rights after verdict, as the accused retains the right to have post-trial applications heard within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with communicating via telecommunication with a person he believed to be under 16 for the purpose of facilitating an invitation to sexual touching, and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18.

The charges arose from Project Raphael, an undercover police investigation targeting purchasers of sexual services from minors.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police engaged in random virtue testing.

The court dismissed the entrapment application, finding the investigation was a bona fide investigation conducted at a location where juvenile prostitution was active and reasonably suspected to be ongoing, and that the accused was not induced to commit the offence.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from his communication via text message with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl offering sexual services.

The charges were: communicating with a person believed to be under 18 to facilitate obtaining sexual services for consideration; communicating with a person believed to be under 16 to facilitate invitation to sexual touching; and communicating to obtain sexual services from a person under 18.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed he was communicating with a minor.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and contradicted by the text message record.

The court concluded the accused made a detailed agreement to purchase sexual services from a person he believed was 15 years old and acted upon that agreement until arrested.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusal to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision in Markham.

The Crown's case established that the defendant's vehicle drove directly off the road and crashed into a retail building with significant force.

The defendant testified that he had consumed three beers at a restaurant and had no memory of the accident.

The trial judge rejected the defendant's evidence regarding alcohol consumption and his claim of retrograde amnesia.

The court found the defendant guilty on all three counts based on the circumstances of the accident, observations of impairment by officers, and the defendant's unequivocal refusal to provide a breath sample.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his spouse occurring on April 23 and 25, 2011.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her against a wall, struck her with his hand, and threatened her during arguments related to their separation.

The accused denied the allegations, admitting only to a slap in 2006.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was sympathetic and the bruising on her arm supported her account, the accused's testimony, though containing some difficulties and contradictions, was not significantly challenged in cross-examination.

The court concluded that reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the accused on both counts.