Kimberly E.M. Moore

The accused, Anthony Ifill, was found guilty of sexual assault against an 11-year-old victim.

The court considered sentencing principles, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount for child sexual offences, as per R. v. Friesen.

Despite the passage of 30 years since the offence, the court found this was not a mitigating factor due to the lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

Aggravating factors included multiple incidents, escalation of seriousness, lack of insight, and profound victim impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and pro-social conduct.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, while the Crown sought 18-24 months custody.

The court determined that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify a conditional sentence and imposed a 16-month custodial sentence, followed by 2 years of probation, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a victim fine surcharge, SOIRA designation for 20 years, and a 10-year prohibition from certain activities involving persons under 16.

The accused was convicted of eight offences including aggravated assault, possession of a prohibited weapon while prohibited, possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000, failing to comply with probation, uttering death threats to police officers, and resisting arrest.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder.

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for shooting a friend in the chest during an argument over music, resulting in non-permanent injuries.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years for aggravated assault, reduced to 5.5 years to account for totality principles and a consecutive sentence on the weapons charge.

The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's youth, limited violent record, and family support, as well as aggravating factors including the serious nature of the offence, criminal record, drug trafficking, and lack of remorse.

The decision also addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault against a 15-year-old client with severe global developmental delays at a respite home where the offender worked as a community support worker.

The offender committed two acts of sexual fondling on the same day.

The court rejected the offender's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence of six months under section 271 of the Criminal Code, finding that the appropriate sentencing range of 9-15 months rendered the constitutional issue moot.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months custody followed by 3 years probation, with various conditions including a 10-year SOIRA designation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a party on February 11-12, 2011.

The defence raised the issue of sexsomnia (sexual activity during sleep), claiming the accused was not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

The trial judge rejected the defence's evidence, finding the accused was awake and aware during the assault.

The judge found the expert evidence of Dr. Shapiro to be biased and unreliable, and rejected the accused's testimony as not credible.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

A police officer with 23 years of service pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, breach of trust by a public officer, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, and possession of methamphetamine and oxycodone.

The offences occurred during the execution of his duties when he stole approximately $11,500 from an undercover operation and possessed various controlled substances at his residence and police locker.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months in custody, with the theft and breach of trust charges receiving 17 months concurrent, firearm and ammunition charges receiving 6 months concurrent, methamphetamine possession receiving 9 months concurrent, and oxycodone possession receiving 4 months consecutive.

The court also imposed a 10-year firearms prohibition and ordered a DNA sample.

The court addressed whether Crown counsel could cross-examine the defence expert witness, Dr. Shapiro, on handwritten notes prepared by the accused shortly after the alleged incident and subsequently provided to the expert for his review.

The defence asserted solicitor-client privilege over the notes.

The court found that the notes were intentionally provided to the expert and that any privilege was waived when the expert testified.

The court ruled that the Crown could cross-examine Dr. Shapiro on all materials listed in his report that were relevant to his expert opinion or his credibility and objectivity as a witness.