Kevin Regimbal

Following jury convictions for sexual assault and two counts of sexual assault with a weapon arising from repeated sexual abuse of an intimate partner over a lengthy cohabiting relationship, the court determined the sentencing facts consistent with the jury verdicts.

The court found two incidents of non-consensual anal sex, five occasions where rope remained on the complainant after consent was withdrawn, and two non-consensual anal plug incidents, but declined to find controlling and abusive behaviour proved beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate aggravating factor.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the statutory aggravation for abuse of an intimate partner, the court imposed 6 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.

The court also made a lifetime SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a custodial no-contact order.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, firearms offences, and possession of proceeds of crime after police found a hidden compartment in a pedestal in their garage containing drugs and loaded firearms.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the value of the items, the accused's occupancy of the residence, and magnets found in the home that could open the compartment.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence did not rule out the reasonable possibility that the items belonged to someone else, given the accused's credible testimony, the lack of forensic evidence, and the fact that others had access to the garage.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Todd Snow of sexual assault, failure to comply with probation, and failure to comply with a peace bond.

The complainant alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse, while the defendant claimed consensual oral sex.

DNA evidence linked the defendant to the complainant’s external genitalia and vaginal swabs, strongly supporting the Crown’s case.

The defendant’s prior statement denying any sexual contact was found to be fabricated to conceal guilt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite her prior convictions and challenges related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The decision highlights the importance of DNA evidence and the legal distinction between disbelief and fabrication of exculpatory statements.

This decision concerns a multi-count fraud prosecution against Richard Belbas, who was tried on 21 counts arising from four indictments.

The court reviews the elements of criminal fraud, the assessment of credibility, and the application of the law to a series of factual scenarios involving alleged fraudulent contracting and business practices.

The court finds Belbas guilty on multiple counts of fraud over and under $5,000, as well as breach of probation, and acquits on several counts where the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation, arguing the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to call reply evidence.

The appellant contended this constituted an improper splitting of the Crown's case, related to a collateral issue, and was used improperly to assess credibility.

The reply evidence concerned an officer's attempt to contact the appellant at her apartment, which countered the appellant's alibi defence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the reply evidence was properly admitted as it directly responded to the alibi defence and was not an improper splitting of the Crown's case or related to a collateral issue.

The accused, Dustin Moffatt, was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault stemming from a stabbing incident.

The case primarily hinged on the identity of the assailant, referred to as the 'Man in Black' (MIB), based largely on circumstantial and video evidence.

The court meticulously analyzed video footage and witness testimony, particularly focusing on the accused's location at the time of the incident and the movements of another individual, the 'Red Hat Man'.

The judge found that video evidence indicated the accused was unconscious and lying on the ground during the stabbings, and that the MIB was likely the 'Red Hat Man' who later rode away on the accused's bike.

This raised reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the assailant.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused, Courtney LaBelle, was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her 11-year-old son.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, considering the brutal nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the statutory requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's Indigenous background and drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, which diminished her moral culpability.

The court balanced these factors, rejecting both the Crown's request for 18 years and the defence's request for 10 years, ultimately imposing a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.