Break and enter

The accused was charged with sexual assault, break and enter, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house after breaking into a stranger's apartment and sexually assaulting her.

The accused claimed he was in a dissociative state due to bereavement, lack of sleep, lack of food, and alcohol consumption, leading him to mistakenly believe he was in his childhood home in Casablanca with his fiancée.

The court emphatically rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and implausible.

The court found no air of reality to the mistake of fact defence, noting that self-induced intoxication short of automatism is not a defence to general intent crimes like sexual assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and sexual interference after entering a stranger's home in the middle of the night and touching the 13-year-old complainant's buttock in her bedroom.

The court found the complainant and her family to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies in their evidence.

The court rejected the defence's arguments of inadvertent collusion and motive to fabricate.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender was found guilty of break and enter and sexual assault after entering an intoxicated and sleeping co-worker's hotel room using a master key.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 9 to 12 months.

The court considered the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's lack of insight, balanced against his pro-social background and the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a global sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, followed by three years of probation and ancillary orders.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and break and enter.

The offender broke into two homes at night, sexually assaulting a minor in one of them.

He had a lengthy criminal record including prior sexual offences and breaches of court orders.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation under s. 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, demonstrating a failure to control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing future harm.

Given his high risk of reoffending, anti-social personality disorder, and history of deceit with treatment providers, the court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The offender was designated a Dangerous Offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

The accused was charged with break and enter and sexual assault after entering a hotel room where a highly intoxicated co-worker was sleeping following an office party.

The accused, a hotel maintenance manager, used a master key to enter the room.

A hotel employee discovered the accused half-naked on top of the sleeping complainant.

The court rejected the accused's explanation that he was using toilet paper to clean up the complainant's urine.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court found the accused guilty of both break and enter and sexual assault, concluding that his actions constituted an intentional application of force in circumstances of a sexual nature without consent.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences relating to a residential break-in and theft of firearms.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in denying him standing to challenge a warrantless search of his girlfriend's vehicle, unfairly dismissed his s. 8 Charter challenges and Garofoli application, and erred in finding reasonable grounds for search warrants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge acted unfairly in summarily dismissing the Garofoli application and standing arguments without hearing submissions, no miscarriage of justice occurred because the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, and uttering threats, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on eyewitness recognition evidence and in denying enhanced credit for strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's identification conclusion was supported by the totality of the evidence, including threatening Facebook messages.

The sentence appeal was dismissed regarding bail credit, but allowed on consent to grant the appellant one year from release to pay an $810.93 restitution order.

The appellant pled guilty to attempted break and enter and was sentenced to a short custodial term, probation, and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing it prevented him from hunting for food.

The Crown conceded the appeal, agreeing that the offence involved intoxicated confusion with no intent to commit theft and no weapons or violence, making the prohibition discretionary rather than mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the weapons prohibition order on consent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, voyeurism, and criminal harassment against his former intimate partner.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding animus, failing to explicitly find the complainant was fearful, and convicting on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of animus, clear evidence of fear upon the discovery of a hidden camera, and overwhelming circumstantial evidence that left no reasonable doubt of guilt.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on multiple charges, including break and enter, which resulted from a trial judge's decision to quash a DNA warrant and exclude the resulting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge found insufficient grounds to link the respondent to the crimes.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapplied the standard of review for warrants by substituting his own view rather than assessing whether the issuing judge could reasonably have found reasonable grounds.

The Court found sufficient evidence, including a fingerprint in a stolen truck linked by DNA to the crime scenes, to support the warrant.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered on four counts.

The appellant appealed her conviction for breaking and entering and theft of a dog, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and based on misapprehended circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and corroborating evidence from neighbours.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, failing to comply, and uttering a threat to an animal.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the evidence of two witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and omissions, and challenged the admission of a prior sworn statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings and noting the prior statement was admitted on consent.

The appeal was dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharges.

The appellant pled guilty to possession of stolen property, attempted break and enter, and break and enter, receiving a 42-month sentence and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing there was no violence used, threatened, or attempted.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's actions, which he admitted scared the victims, constituted an implied threat of violence.

The appeal was dismissed, but the prohibition was varied to 10 years at the Crown's request.

The appellant was convicted of break and enter and theft after his blood was found on the broken door frame of a commercial store.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapplied the test for circumstantial evidence and relied on impermissible speculation.

He also appealed his 45-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct analytic framework and the verdict was reasonable given the fresh blood evidence and the appellant's failure to testify.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The offender pleaded guilty to historical offences of break and enter and sexual assault with a weapon committed in 1998, after being linked by DNA evidence in 2013.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four years, characterizing the offence as a home invasion, while the defence sought a non-custodial or conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's significant Gladue factors, his extensive rehabilitation efforts over the past five years, and the profound impact on the victim.

The court distinguished the case from typical home invasions and sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody followed by three years of probation.

The offender, a 21-year-old first offender, was convicted of residential break and enter and possession of stolen property over $5000.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6 to 9 months, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court found that the offender suffered from severe mental health issues, including schizophrenia, which constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual range of a custodial sentence for residential break and enter.

The court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed three years of probation with strict conditions, prioritizing rehabilitation over general deterrence.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including sexual assault, physical assault, and break and enter, committed against his intimate partner over several years.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the accused was sentenced to 33 months in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a lifetime SOIRA order, a weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility and reliability, and in appreciating the elements of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, which attract great deference, and concluding that the finding of no permission to enter supported the conviction.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused, a young person sentenced as an adult, pleaded guilty to break and enter, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and possession of restricted firearms.

The offences involved a home invasion where a neighbour was shot, and a separate incident where another victim was shot at a party.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The accused was sentenced to 20 months' custody in addition to 52 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years' probation.