Kenneth S. Marley

The Crown sought an order permitting two witnesses ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom to testify at trial via videoconference pursuant to section 714.2 of the Criminal Code.

The witnesses had testified at the preliminary inquiry by videoconference and were key to the Crown's case, having heard sounds and voices from the room where the alleged murder occurred.

The defence opposed the request, arguing that videoconference testimony would compromise the accused's right to a fair trial and full answer and defence, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and the importance of assessing witness credibility.

The court granted the Crown's request, finding that the witnesses satisfied the requirements of section 714.2, that the defence had not established that videoconference testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, and that the circumstances fell squarely within the legislative intent of section 714.2.

The court considered charges of sexual exploitation and sexual assault against Steven Ronald Moreau, who was accused of engaging in a sexual relationship with VJ, his employee, beginning when she was 16 years old.

The court found Moreau guilty of sexual exploitation under s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code, finding he was in a position of trust and authority as VJ’s employer.

However, the court acquitted him on two counts of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Moreau abused his position to induce sexual activity or that he engaged in sexual activity without VJ’s consent on the occasion alleged.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the legal distinctions between sexual exploitation and sexual assault in the context of positions of trust and authority.

Mark John Ryn was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to import fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the duration of the trafficking enterprise, and the offender's profit motive and manipulation of a vulnerable co-accused.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence and lack of a prior criminal record.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and denunciation in fentanyl cases and distinguishing Ryn's circumstances from his co-accused due to her guilty plea, cooperation, and victim status.

Ryn was sentenced to a concurrent term of four years imprisonment for each count.

The offender, Ghislain Desjardins, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and assaulting a peace officer with a weapon.

The offences involved intentionally driving a vehicle at a police officer and later assaulting another officer during arrest.

The Crown sought a six-month jail sentence, while the defence requested an 8-9 month conditional sentence, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitative efforts.

The court highlighted the seriousness of violence against law enforcement, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Despite significant aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the attack and a criminal record, mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, remorse, abstinence from alcohol, and personal circumstances (loss of partner) were considered.

The court imposed two consecutive six-month conditional sentences of imprisonment, totaling 12 months, followed by two years of probation, a one-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant, Kelly W. Morrison, appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and possession of stolen property, and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's consideration of the mental element of criminal harassment, the identification of stolen underwear, and the assessment of witness credibility.

The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to explicitly consider alternatives to incarceration.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of evidence, and that the sentence was fit.

The Appellant, Robert Meersseman, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding .080.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the trial judge reversed the burden of proof and whether the breath samples were obtained "as soon as practicable." The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof, properly assessed credibility, and correctly concluded that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, despite a minor miscalculation of a time interval.

The court emphasized that "as soon as practicable" requires a reasonably prompt time considering overall circumstances, not an exact accounting of every moment.

The appeal was dismissed, and the driving prohibition was reinstated.

T.D. was convicted of sexual assault and extortion against his spouse, T.K., by repeatedly threatening to withdraw her immigration sponsorship and have her deported.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of spouse, abuse of a position of trust and authority due to T.K.'s vulnerable immigration status, and a pattern of abuse.

Mitigating factors included a minimal criminal record and a traumatic upbringing, though mental health issues were not sufficiently established to explain the conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

A global sentence of 40 months imprisonment was imposed, with sentences for sexual assault (40 months) and extortion (14 months) to run concurrently due to their inextricable nexus as part of a single endeavour to obtain sexual favours.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order, mandatory DNA collection, a no-contact order, forfeiture of an offence-related cellphone, and a 10-year firearm prohibition.

The applicant, K.K., charged with historical sexual assault, sought an order for the production of the complainant T.V.'s counselling records from Steven Kerr, pursuant to sections 278.5 and 278.7 of the Criminal Code.

The application was based on the complainant's admitted uncertainty regarding the details of the alleged assaults and the temporal connection between counselling and reporting to police, arguing that the records were likely to be relevant to her reliability and credibility.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis, first finding that the applicant had met the threshold for judicial review of the records.

However, after reviewing the notes, the court found them to be brief summaries lacking specific details of the allegations and consistent with the complainant's preliminary hearing evidence.

The court concluded that releasing the material would not assist the applicant's right to make full answer and defence and would only serve to discourage victims from seeking counselling.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for stabbing his girlfriend 69 times in a jealous rage.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 14-17 years, while the defence sought 10-13 years, citing the offender's troubled past, mental health issues, and intoxication.

The court weighed the brutal nature of the domestic homicide against the offender's personal circumstances and remorse.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 15 years.

The accused, a mother and her boyfriend, were charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the mother's 20-month-old child died from severe scald burns.

The child was accidentally burned by hot coffee, suffering third-degree burns to 25 percent of his body.

Neither accused sought medical attention for the child over the three days leading to his death, despite the obvious severity of the injuries.

The mother claimed she delegated care to her boyfriend and was unaware of the child's deteriorating condition, while the boyfriend argued he had no legal duty of care as he was not the child's parent.

The court rejected both defences, finding the mother's testimony implausible and establishing that the boyfriend acted as a guardian with a legal duty of care.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts, as their failure to seek medical treatment constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent or guardian.