Konrad de Koning

The accused was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and child luring against his intimate partner's 10- or 11-year-old daughter.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse involving a breach of trust.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, finding it manifestly unfit given the gravity of the offences.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 6.5 years in custody (5.5 years for sexual interference and 1 year consecutive for child luring), less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with various ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order.

Jade Boucetta pleaded guilty to voyeurism and distributing intimate images without consent.

The victim, K.E., was intoxicated and unaware of the recording.

The video, showing sexual intercourse, was sent to a Snapchat group.

The incident had a severe and lasting impact on the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the devastating impact, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring, community service, and social media restrictions, finding it could meet the sentencing principles given the specific circumstances and absence of certain aggravating factors found in other cases.

The Crown and defence attended a case conference to determine whether the defendant's sentencing hearing should proceed remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant objected to a remote hearing and requested an in-person hearing.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed by videoconference pursuant to the newly enacted provisions of the Criminal Code, finding that a remote hearing would be fair, public, and appropriate given public health concerns.

The defendant, Jason Borden, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and proceeded to trial on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The court reviewed video evidence and witness testimony, making detailed findings of fact regarding an altercation between Borden and Darius Salmon.

Borden raised defences of self-defence and accident.

The court found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and even if there were, Borden's actions were not reasonable given the circumstances, as Salmon was unarmed and did not physically threaten Borden before the gun was drawn.

The court also rejected the defence of accident, finding Borden's testimony regarding the gun's discharge not credible.

Consequently, Borden was found guilty on all three remaining counts.

The applicant, facing multiple firearms and driving charges, sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code and a 90-day detention review under s. 525.

The applicant argued that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed, finding that the pandemic is a material change allowing for a de novo bail hearing, regardless of whether the accused has underlying health issues.

Upon reviewing the proposed bail plan involving strict house arrest with sureties, the court found the applicant met his reverse onus and granted release.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter and second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether the amendments in Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges (repeal of s. 634 of the Criminal Code) have retrospective effect.

The court held that the availability of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter, not a substantive right.

Therefore, the repeal applies retrospectively to all matters before the court as of the coming into force date, September 19, 2019.

The defendant pleaded guilty to disposing of a child's dead body with intent to conceal the birth, contrary to s. 243 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed that a custodial sentence was not appropriate.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was in the defendant's best interests due to mental health issues and profound remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court found that while a conditional discharge was in the defendant's best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation order, including conditions for counselling and a victim surcharge.