Kerry Watson

This decision concerns a Gardiner hearing following S.M.'s guilty plea to two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters, V.M. and M.G. The court reviews the evidence to determine aggravating facts, including the number, nature, and circumstances of the assaults.

The decision addresses the credibility and reliability of the complainants, the timing and location of the assaults, and the extent of family knowledge and disclosure.

The court finds the core details of the assaults proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite some inconsistencies in peripheral details, and concludes that the complainants did not collude or exaggerate their testimony.

The two accused were sentenced for their roles in a series of destructive crimes.

Joseph Pickstock pleaded guilty to multiple counts of fraud, arson, break and enter, and public mischief, causing extensive financial and emotional devastation to numerous victims, including an elderly man.

He was sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay over $533,000 in restitution.

Robert Pickstock pleaded guilty to four counts of public mischief for diverting police attention from his brother's crimes.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, 3 years' probation, and ordered to pay partial restitution.

The accused was convicted of touching a child, who was between seven and nine years old at the time, for a sexual purpose.

The offence involved sexual intercourse and occurred in the victim's family home.

The accused had a prior conviction for a sexual offence against a minor.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized the profound harm caused to child victims and the breach of trust involved.

The accused was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, along with a 15-year prohibition order, a lifetime SOIRA order, and other ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and mischief following an incident on July 8, 2017.

The Crown alleged that the accused struck, choked, and forced his wife to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with him after they returned home from a night out.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) test and rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, finding it inconsistent and evasive regarding the troubled nature of their marriage.

The judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, noting that her account was consistent with the relationship dynamics and corroborated by photographic evidence of injuries.

The accused was found guilty of assault and sexual assault but acquitted of mischief.

The accused, Daniel Neill, brought a motion to exclude evidence (images and photographs from a seized Blackberry memory card) in a child pornography trial, alleging violations of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found two breaches: (1) delayed filing of the initial report to a Justice regarding the seized Blackberry, and (2) failure to file a detailed report to a Justice regarding the seized data (images and photographs) after extraction.

Despite these breaches, the court applied the R. v. Grant factors and concluded that the evidence should not be excluded.

The seriousness of the state conduct was attenuated by the lawful seizure of the phone and the unsettled nature of the law regarding data reporting.

The impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal as the items would not have been returned.

Society's interest in adjudicating serious child pornography offences on their merits weighed heavily.

The motion to exclude was dismissed, and the evidence was admitted.

The court criticized the police conduct as "sloppy" and "careless" but found no basis for exclusion under s. 24(2).

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand after being found asleep at the wheel at a green light.

The defendant claimed he was unable to provide a breath sample due to asthma and anxiety symptoms.

The Crown argued the defendant was feigning his inability to comply.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and convicted him of the offence, finding he intentionally refused to provide the sample.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to admit a videotaped statement given by the accused following arrest.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the statement was voluntary and whether the accused possessed an operating mind at the time it was made.

The defence argued that the statement was involuntary due to alleged oppressive conditions and medication affecting the accused’s cognitive functioning, and further submitted that the Crown failed to call all relevant officers.

The court held that the Crown was not required to call every officer who had incidental contact with the accused and found no evidence of threats, promises, inducements, or oppressive conditions.

After reviewing the video evidence, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused understood the caution, possessed sufficient cognitive capacity, and gave the statement voluntarily.