C. Cawkell

The offender was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and other offences against a sex trade worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7-9 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, history of domestic violence, and psychiatric assessments indicating a moderate to high risk of sexual re-offending.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, and designated him a long-term offender subject to a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with manslaughter of his mother and assault causing bodily harm to his aunt after he pushed his aunt out of the house, causing her to fall into his mother, who then fell down concrete stairs and later died.

The Crown abandoned the manslaughter charge and sought a conviction for aggravated assault based on transferred intent.

The court found that aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm were not lesser included offences of manslaughter, but unlawfully causing bodily harm was.

The court rejected the accused's defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property, finding them lacking an air of reality.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against the aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against the mother.

Dangerous offender sentencing following guilty pleas to choking to commit sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from a prolonged stranger attack.

The court held that the Crown proved all three relied-upon designation gateways under ss. 753(1)(a)(i), 753(1)(a)(ii), and 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, based on a lengthy history of sexual offending, enduring paraphilic disorders, antisocial traits, failed treatment, and repeated supervision breaches.

Applying the framework in Boutilier and the least-restrictive inquiry at the penalty stage, the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by a 10-year LTSO would adequately protect the public.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including sexual interference with a minor, making and possessing child pornography, smuggling obscene materials, and breaching recognizance conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe emotional impact on the victim and the accused's flagrant breaches of bail conditions by re-offending.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 6 years in custody, reduced to 4.5 years net after applying a 1.5:1 enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to physical assaults suffered in jail.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and assault against a young man whom he had groomed.

The Crown sought 15 to 18 months' incarceration, while the defence sought 8 months.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 months' incarceration to be served concurrently, followed by 3 years of probation, along with a lifetime SOIRA order, a 10-year s. 161 prohibition order, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of possession of child pornography and possession of methamphetamine.

The child pornography collection was of moderate size and mostly in the middle range of severity.

The offender was a 52-year-old first-time offender with health issues.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 15 months' imprisonment for the child pornography charge and time served concurrently for the drug charge, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition.

The accused was charged with possession, making, and making available child pornography, as well as possession of methamphetamine.

Following a search of his apartment, police seized hard drives and CDs containing child pornography, along with a small amount of crystal meth.

The court found the accused guilty of possessing the CDs containing child pornography and the methamphetamine.

However, the court acquitted the accused of making child pornography, holding that the Crown failed to prove he copied the files, and further ruling that merely copying child pornography does not constitute 'making' it under section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.