Kim Edward

The offenders were convicted of possession of benzimidazole for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court noted that benzimidazole is a highly addictive and lethal opioid, more potent than fentanyl and resistant to Narcan.

The principal offender, who operated a high-end mid-level trafficking enterprise from her residence, was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment.

The co-offender, a frequent visitor to the residence who was found to have diminished moral culpability as a 'found-in' party, was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.

The offenders, foster parents to two Indigenous children, were found guilty of first degree murder of one child and unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and failure to provide necessaries of life to the other.

The court sentenced them to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for the murder.

For the offences against the surviving child, the court imposed sentences of 3 years, 2 years, and the maximum 5 years respectively, to be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the life sentence.

The court emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the victims and the profound breach of trust, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

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two incidents of non-consensual anal sex, five occasions where rope remained on the complainant after consent was withdrawn, and two non-consensual anal plug incidents, but declined to find controlling and abusive behaviour proved beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate aggravating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

Sentencing for multiple sexual offences against children, including two counts of sexual interference, one count of sexual exploitation, four counts of making child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

The offender, in a position of trust as stepfather, sexually abused two stepdaughters over a period exceeding six years, commencing when the victims were 9 and 11 years of age.

The abuse escalated in severity and frequency and included video-recording of the sexual assaults.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives, and considered the significant aggravating factors including breach of trust, duration and frequency of offending, the creation of child sexual abuse material, and the severe impact on the victims.

A global sentence of 16 years imprisonment less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit was imposed, along with ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA, DNA order, firearms prohibition, s. 161 order, and non-communication order.

Flora Sadik, previously found NCR for assault with a weapon, was subject to a mandatory annual review of her Detention Order by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown recommended continuing the Detention Order, which the accused did not contest.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience symptoms of psychosis, lacks insight into her illness, and would likely decompensate and pose a significant threat to public safety if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order to ensure medication adherence and facilitate a highly supervised transition to community living.

The accused was referred to the Ontario Review Board after being found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and break and enter.

The Board held a hearing to determine her fitness and the appropriate disposition.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to active psychosis and an inability to appreciate her legal situation.

The Board ordered that she be subject to a Detention Order at the hospital to safely manage her significant risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for a young person found unfit to stand trial on charges including uttering threats and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with moderate to severe intellectual disability and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, was found to lack the cognitive capacity to understand court processes or instruct counsel.

The Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial and poses a significant threat to public safety due to emotional dysregulation and aggressive behaviours.

A detention order at a youth centre with supervised community passes was issued.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who has treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and aggravated assault of a peace officer.

The parties jointly submitted that the detention order should be maintained with minor changes to privileges.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Jordan Romaker was sentenced for possession of child pornography and voyeurism after pleading guilty to both charges.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment or 2.5 to 3 years jail.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen and R. v. Pike, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences.

Aggravating factors included the large and sophisticated collection of child pornography depicting various forms of abuse, and the voyeurism offence committed while on release.

Mitigating factors included guilty pleas, no prior criminal record (for sentencing purposes), mental health challenges, and expressed remorse.

Collateral consequences related to the offender's mother's care were considered but did not outweigh the need for a proportionate sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment (3.5 years for child pornography and 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), along with ancillary orders including DNA, a s. 161 prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The applicant was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan regarding the prospective application of the abolition of peremptory challenges, the applicant brought a motion for a mistrial, arguing the jury was improperly constituted.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it was functus officio as the jury had already rendered its verdict and been discharged.

The court concluded that the case did not fall into the recognized exceptions allowing post-verdict changes, and the applicant's proper remedy was to appeal.

The accused was tried on charges of agreeing or arranging by telecommunication to sexually assault a child and breaching probation after extensive email, text, telephone, and in-person communications with undercover police posing as a child's mother.

The court held that s. 172.2 of the Criminal Code is a preparatory offence analogous to child luring under s. 172.1, such that the offence is complete when the accused intentionally makes the agreement or arrangement with respect to a person believed to be underage.

Applying W. (D.), the court found the accused's asserted innocent rescue motive neither credible nor capable of raising a reasonable doubt.

The surrounding communications and preparatory acts, including renting a motel room and bringing condoms, lubricant, beer, and a toy, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

Four accused were charged with first degree murder in the death of the victim, who was shot in the chest on November 30, 2013.

One accused conceded committal.

The remaining three accused contested committal.

The Crown's theory was that the accused, motivated by prior animus, planned and deliberately ambushed and murdered the victim with the assistance of an accused who possessed a firearm.

The court examined extensive surveillance video evidence, cell phone records, and witness testimony to determine whether sufficient evidence existed for committal on first degree murder charges.

The court found that the evidence, largely circumstantial, supported inferences that the three accused collectively planned and deliberately executed the murder and committed to the enterprise without resiling from it.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder arising from a fatal beating that left the victim incapacitated on railway tracks where he was subsequently struck by a train.

They argued the evidence supported, at most, manslaughter or second degree murder.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the test for committal and that there was some evidence capable of supporting each essential element of first degree murder.

Evidence existed from which a jury could infer intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause death and recklessness, as well as planning and deliberation in leaving the victim incapacitated on the tracks.

The evidence could also support constructive first degree murder based on unlawful confinement.