Kelly Christine Beale

This decision addresses an ex parte application for a restraining order under s. 4 of the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017, seeking to compel the respondent to stay away from the victim and destroy intimate images.

The court, noting this was the first such application in the Oshawa courthouse, provided reasons for its decision.

Despite finding the applicant's evidence compelling for an ex parte order, the application was deficient in form, particularly regarding publication bans and service details.

The court granted an interim 30-day restraining order instead of the requested 3-year order, allowing the applicant to rectify deficiencies and the respondent an opportunity to participate after service.

The Crown sought to admit several post-arrest utterances made by the accused, Derrick Goulding, in a sexual assault trial.

Goulding argued the statements were involuntary and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, particularly those implicating co-accused Shawn Clyke.

The court found Goulding's statements were voluntary, as he was aware of his rights and the implications of speaking.

However, the court ruled that utterances directly implicating Clyke had no probative value against Goulding and their prejudicial effect outweighed any utility, even with a jury instruction.

Consequently, those specific portions of Goulding's statements were ordered to be excised before being adduced as evidence.

The Crown sought to detain an Indigenous accused facing serious charges of gang sexual assault pending trial.

The accused had spent months in pretrial custody and had no surety available due to his difficult personal history, including childhood in state care and lack of family connections.

His co-accused, facing similar charges with comparable evidence, had been released on bail with family support.

The court released the accused on his own recognizance with Toronto Bail Program supervision and conditions, finding that detention was not necessary for public safety or confidence in the administration of justice.

The decision emphasizes the disproportionate incarceration of Indigenous persons and the importance of considering systemic factors and unique circumstances in bail determinations for Indigenous accused.

A sentencing decision involving a 67-year-old offender convicted of 102 counts of sexual abuse against 18 young male victims over a 30-year period spanning 1965 to 1995.

The offender systematically exploited positions of trust as a teacher's assistant, coach, and carnival worker to gain access to vulnerable children, whom he groomed and sexually abused.

The offender had previously been convicted in 1998 for similar offences against 24 other boys from the same time period, for which he received a six-year sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of six years, taking into account the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation over 15 years in the community without reoffending, his consistent use of anti-libidinal medication, his guilty pleas, and his engagement with support services, while balancing the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The offender was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code after police executing a search warrant discovered a loaded handgun with its serial number obliterated tucked into his pants.

Evidence established the firearm was associated with drug trafficking activity occurring at the premises.

The offender, a youthful first offender with no criminal record and strong family support, argued that the three‑year mandatory minimum in s. 95(2)(a)(i) was unconstitutional following R. v. Smickle.

The court accepted that the minimum had been declared of no force and effect but nevertheless concluded that a penitentiary sentence of three years was appropriate given the aggravating factors, including immediate accessibility of the loaded weapon, flight from police, the defaced serial number, and the connection to drug trafficking.

After credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, the offender was ordered to serve two years and eight months.