Krystal Lee Manitius

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent, an Indigenous offender who pled guilty to domestic assault and breach of recognizance.

The trial judge had stayed the charges, finding the respondent's s. 7 Charter rights were breached due to over-incarceration while awaiting a Gladue report that Aboriginal Legal Services (ALS) ultimately could not produce, and because ALS allegedly breached a court order to provide the report.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondent was actually detained on other charges, not just awaiting the report.

Furthermore, the trial judge only requested, not ordered, the report, and had no jurisdiction to order a non-party like ALS to produce one.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for sentencing.

Sentencing for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving repeated sexualized touching of a child over a period of years in a family-friend setting.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual offence sentencing, citing contemporary appellate guidance that such offences are violent crimes causing profound and lasting harm.

Despite finding high moral culpability and recognizing that jail would ordinarily be required, the court treated the pandemic, the offender's age, and significant health conditions as exceptional circumstances justifying a conditional sentence.

A sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community under house arrest, together with probation and multiple ancillary protective orders, was imposed.

The accused applied for an order permitting him to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his upcoming trial.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the accused's lengthy criminal record and past courtroom outbursts, though acknowledging he was not an escape risk.

The court granted the application, preferring the line of authority that locating an accused outside the prisoner's dock better reflects the presumption of innocence.

The court ordered that the accused be permitted to sit at counsel table, subject to discreet security measures.

The appellant appealed a three-year total sentence for domestic assault, mischief, and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty plea, rehabilitative steps, and expressed insight.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with 23 counts of prohibited contact with his former spouse.

He pleaded guilty to 3 counts of failing to comply with probation and 1 count of criminal harassment.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 28 years, including 16 convictions involving violence and 17 breaches of court orders.

He violated probation orders prohibiting contact within hours of release from jail, engaging in repeated unwanted contact with the victim at multiple locations.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day, with 414 days remaining to be served after crediting 315 days of pre-trial custody.

Post-release probation conditions included a 3-year term with strict no-contact provisions and geographic restrictions.