Lara Crawford

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual exploitation of a 15-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the offender sought a significantly reduced sentence due to PTSD stemming from harsh pre-trial custody conditions on prior unrelated charges.

The court found the PTSD to be a mitigating factor and sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, reduced to 3 years and 211 days after applying enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including lockdowns.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to kill police officers by posting threatening messages on Facebook on October 4, 2016.

The Crown's case turned on two issues: whether the accused posted the messages and whether the messages constituted threats with the requisite intent.

The court found that the accused's identity as the poster was established through photographic evidence on the Facebook account, recognition evidence from a defence witness, and circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McRae to find that the messages constituted threats of death to police officers under the objective test, and that the accused intended the threats to be taken seriously despite posting them to a limited Facebook audience.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 15-year-old passenger in his Uber vehicle.

The Crown sought 12 months jail; the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 90 days.

The court imposed 11.5 months jail structured as two consecutive sentences of 173 days each (plus 3 days presentence custody) to remain below the 6-month threshold that would trigger mandatory deportation consequences under immigration law.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for offences involving children, and noted the defendant's lack of remorse, empathy, and insight into his conduct as aggravating factors.

The defendant, an Uber driver aged 29, was charged with three offences: Sexual Assault contrary to s. 271, Invitation to Sexual Touching contrary to s. 152, and Sexual Interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant had just turned 15 years old at the time of the incident.

The defendant picked up the complainant and two friends at a gala dance event in Oshawa in May 2016.

During the drive, the defendant initiated sexual contact by touching the complainant's penis in the front seat.

Subsequently, sexual contact occurred in the back seat of the vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The court rejected the defendant's mistake of age defence, finding that the defendant did not honestly believe the complainant was over 16 years of age and failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon against his common-law partner.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing was aggravated by two prior assaults against the same victim in 1999 and 2012, both involving weapons.

The court emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence in intimate relationships and the breach of trust involved.

Conditions included a no-contact order, weapons prohibition, anger management and domestic violence counselling, and restitution of $1,234.45.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, break and enter to commit robbery, and assault.

The offences constituted a home invasion where the accused and a co-accused forcibly entered an occupied residence armed with weapons, with the accused assaulting a victim who attempted to contact police.

The court imposed a sentence of three years less a day, less pre-trial custody credit, recognizing the serious nature of home invasion offences while considering the accused's youth, first-offender status, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court also imposed a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and probation conditions upon release.

The Crown charged the defendant with criminal harassment under Section 264 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the defendant's conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for the safety of his wife and daughter.

The dispute arose from a neighbour conflict in a rural area near Port Perry, Ontario.

The defendant engaged in various acts including driving his truck onto the complainant's lawn, making obscene gestures, using foul language, shining high-beam lights into the complainant's bedroom window, and photographing/videotaping the complainant's family.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct was uncivil and constituted harassment, it did not meet the threshold for criminal harassment as it did not cause the complainant to be "tormented" or "chronically plagued" as required by law.

The defendant was acquitted of the criminal harassment charge but the court indicated it would impose a peace bond.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to the police's failure to retain a 2007 videotaped statement made by the complainant.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the loss of the video was not due to unacceptable negligence.

Given that the complainant's credibility was the central issue and she had a history of recantations and perjury, the loss of the video irreparably prejudiced the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The court concluded this was one of the clearest of cases and ordered a stay of proceedings on the sexual assault count.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm (a handgun) while not being authorized to do so, contrary to s. 99(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that during ongoing drug trafficking transactions with an undercover officer, the accused made a clear and sincere offer to obtain a handgun for $2,500.

The defence argued the offer was not serious and lacked sufficient particularity.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the defence evidence as unreliable and accepting the officer's testimony.

The court also dismissed the defence application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, finding that the accused, not the officer, initiated the firearm discussions and that the officer did not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offence.