Lakin Afolabi

This sentencing decision concerns M.S., who was found guilty of sexual interference and two counts of assault against his daughters, A1 and A2.

The court reviews the facts of the offences, the impact on the victims, the offender’s background including Indigenous heritage and intergenerational trauma, and the results of a Gladue report and Sentencing Circle.

The court considers the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Ultimately, the court imposes a conditional sentence of two years less a day for sexual interference, concurrent 90-day sentences for assault, followed by two years’ probation and various ancillary orders.

This decision addresses the issue of consent in a sexual assault trial involving Seungjin Lee, who was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

The court carefully analyzed conflicting testimonies regarding the events at a hotel room following a date, focusing on whether the complainant, S.K., consented to sexual activity.

The judge found reasonable doubt regarding the sexual assault charges due to inconsistencies and ambiguities in the evidence, ultimately acquitting Lee of sexual assault and forcible confinement but convicting him of criminal harassment based on his admitted conduct and evidence.

The applicant, convicted of two counts of indecent assault and sentenced to four years concurrent, sought bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the three elements under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal was frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was deemed not frivolous and the applicant was likely to surrender, the court found that his detention was necessary in the public interest.

Balancing the strong interest in enforceability due to the seriousness of the sexual offences against children against the weak interest in reviewability given the weakness of the appeal grounds, the court dismissed the application for bail pending appeal.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault with a weapon following an encounter with the complainant at his apartment.

The complainant testified that she initially consented to vaginal intercourse but revoked her consent when the defendant digitally penetrated her rectum.

She alleged the defendant ignored her protests, used a belt around her neck as a weapon, and forced further non-consensual sexual acts.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the defendant's version of events as illogical.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused, Lawrence Thompson, was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, kidnapping, and abduction of a child under 14.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Thompson picked up a four-year-old complainant, B.S., and drove her a short distance.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the child witness, noting inconsistencies but finding her core testimony credible.

The court found the accused's after-the-fact conduct (removing car parts, false statements) indicative of a guilty conscience.

The court rejected the defense of mistake of fact regarding consent for kidnapping, stating a four-year-old cannot consent to confinement by a stranger.

All four charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and carrying a concealed weapon following an early morning altercation with his romantic partner.

An eyewitness intervened and testified that the accused produced a small knife from his pants and pointed it at him.

The accused denied having a knife and claimed the altercation was purely verbal on his part.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, found the eyewitness credible, and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and pointed the knife.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused was charged with a single count of sexual assault against his wife, the complainant, occurring between August 2013 and April 2016.

The complainant alleged multiple instances of forced, non-consensual sexual activity, while the accused maintained all sexual activity was consensual.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, her mother, and the accused, relying heavily on text messages that contradicted the complainant's testimony regarding her relationship with her mother and the accused.

Applying the W.(D) principles, the court accepted much of the accused's evidence and found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, leaving a reasonable doubt as to the absence of consent.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was tried on two counts of sexual assault involving adult complainants who were sisters.

After the Crown closed its case, a non-suit application was granted on the first count, and the trial proceeded only on the second count.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence on consent credible and concluded the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

The accused was acquitted on the remaining count.

The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual interference involving a child under the age of 16, with the sexual assault count conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court determined at sentencing that the evidence established two incidents of sexual touching of a very young child but that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences occurred after legislative amendments increasing the mandatory minimum penalty.

Applying sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for offences involving abuse of children and breach of trust, the court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s age and the offender’s position of trust, as well as mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record, positive background, and some indications of remorse.

After reviewing comparative authorities, the court concluded that a custodial sentence of 14 months was appropriate, followed by probation and several ancillary orders including SOIRA registration and a weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed convictions arising from a home invasion robbery in which the sole live issue at trial was identity.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge on identification evidence was materially deficient because it failed to caution adequately about the limited value of in-dock identification, the risk of contamination of the photo-lineup identification, the weak connection between witness confidence and accuracy, and the exculpatory significance of a discrepancy about eye colour.

Given that the Crown’s case rested entirely on eyewitness identification that was far from overwhelming, the cumulative effect of the charge errors undermined trial fairness.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

A 14-year-old youth pleaded guilty to 16 counts of sexual assault and one count of touching for a sexual purpose against a five-year-old victim on a school bus over a seven-month period.

The offender was a school bus monitor who groomed the victim through friendship and trust.

The court determined that the offences constituted violent offences under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act based on the psychological harm caused to the victim.

The court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order of four months in custody and two months supervision, followed by one year of probation, rather than immediate incarceration, based on the offender's youth, supportive family environment, positive response to rehabilitation, and the availability of intensive monitoring and treatment programs.

The Applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant operated without the required insurance for a period of 19.5 months, constituting a second breach of the requirement.

Applying the statutory criteria, the Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's proposal and ordered the imposition of a $3,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant, a law student, was expelled from the University of Western Ontario following a series of disturbing behaviours and a threatening Facebook post directed at a fellow student.

He sought judicial review of the University Discipline Appeal Committee's decision upholding his expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was barred by unexplained delay.

On the merits, the court held that the applicant's Facebook post was not protected by the Charter right to free speech, the university's procedures were fair, and the Code of Student Conduct reasonably applied to off-campus conduct that adversely affected the university environment.