Allison Dellandrea

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence arising from a conviction for possession of child pornography, and also challenged the length of a ten-year long-term offender supervision order.

The court held that the sentencing judge imposed an illegal custodial sentence because the sentence, when combined with pre-sentence custody expressly treated as additional time, exceeded the then-applicable five-year statutory maximum under s. 163.1(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Re-sentencing afresh, the court imposed a fit sentence of 4.5 years' imprisonment and granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at 1.5:1 under Summers, leaving 16 days remaining.

The challenge to the ten-year supervision order was dismissed because the record amply supported the appellant's very high risk of reoffending and need for close supervision and gradual reintegration.

The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography after police executed a search warrant at his home.

On appeal, he challenged the validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and the reasonableness of the 'no-knock' entry by heavily armed tactical officers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ITO contained sufficient reliable information based on the use of a peer-to-peer network tracking tool.

The Court also held that the unannounced entry was justified by the ease with which digital evidence could be destroyed, and the overall manner of the search did not violate section 8 of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his conviction for internet luring, arguing the trial judge failed to consider whether he had a last-minute change of heart about a planned sexual encounter, which might negate the mens rea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the offence had crystallized well before the meeting date and any last-minute change of heart was irrelevant.

The Crown brought an application concerning the forfeiture and destruction of devices seized during a criminal investigation involving materials potentially subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the draft order submitted on consent by the parties and determined that it should issue with modifications requiring a detailed report describing the manner in which the seized devices and forensic images were destroyed.

The court held that judicial supervision over materials seized from a law office includes oversight of their ultimate destruction in order to preserve confidence in the protection of solicitor-client privilege.

The parties were invited to make written submissions regarding the proposed amendments before the order would be finalized.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge gave full and careful reasons, made no error of law, and properly considered all mitigating factors.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings entered after a finding of guilt for child luring, where the trial judge held the accused had been entrapped by an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl on MSN Messenger.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to determine whether the officer's initial contact actually provided an opportunity to commit the offence.

The initial request to be added as a friend, the neutral photograph, and innocuous conversation were investigative steps only, not an inducement or opportunity to commit child luring.

The accused initiated and led the sexually explicit communications after learning the purported age of the child.

The stay was set aside, a conviction was substituted, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellant appealed a six-month sentence for possession of child pornography facilitated through the internet.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for crimes victimizing vulnerable children.

The respondent pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and Internet child luring.

He was sentenced to 45 days' imprisonment for the child pornography conviction and a 12-month conditional sentence for the luring conviction.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence, arguing the sentencing judge overemphasized rehabilitation and underemphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly applied the relevant principles and her decision was entitled to deference.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following guilty pleas to multiple offences involving sexual assaults on a four-year-old child, making child pornography using that child, possession of a large volume of child pornography, and distribution over the Internet, including a live webcam transmission of abuse.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge overemphasized totality and failed to give sufficient weight to the overall gravity, interrelated nature, and extreme breach of trust inherent in the offender's conduct.

Applying the global sentence approach for connected child sexual abuse and child pornography offences, the court found the effective four-year sentence manifestly unfit.

Despite the respondent's release and fresh evidence of therapeutic progress, the sentence was so inadequate that re-incarceration was required.

The sentence was varied to seven years' imprisonment with credit for time served.

The appellant communicated in an internet chat room with an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.

Believing he was communicating with a child, the appellant transmitted a video of himself masturbating.

He was convicted of communicating for the purpose of facilitating the exposure of his genitals to a child under s. 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, he argued that the offence was impossible to complete because the officer was not actually a child, and that the exposure offence required the parties to be in the same physical location.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused's belief about the victim's age was sufficient for the inchoate offence, and that the exposure offence applies to images sent over the internet.