G. Clark

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after encouraging her co-accused to attack the victim, who subsequently died from a stab wound.

The court found the offender's active role in instigating the confrontation and her failure to render assistance to be significant aggravating factors.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including her guilty plea and lack of a significant criminal record, the court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving approximately 38 months to serve.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences following the execution of a search warrant at a basement apartment.

The police found the accused attempting to escape through a bedroom window, outside of which they located a jacket containing a loaded handgun.

Inside the bedroom, police found fentanyl, cocaine, cash, digital scales, and cell phones.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including text messages, photos, and the accused's exclusive occupation of the bedroom, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the loaded handgun and possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

In a pre-trial application in a sexual offence prosecution involving allegations by the accused's biological daughter, the Crown sought leave to adduce similar fact evidence from two other complainants alleging prior intrafamilial sexual abuse.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held there was no air of reality to alleged collusion or contamination among the witnesses.

The court found the proposed evidence had insufficient probative value on mens rea, context, and rebuttal of fabrication, but was highly probative on actus reus because of the unusual and aberrant nature of the alleged conduct and the significant similarities among the allegations.

The probative value on that issue outweighed the substantial prejudicial effect, and the evidence was admitted.

In a judge-alone sexual assault trial arising from a sexual encounter that began consensually, the central issue was whether the accused struck the complainant mid-encounter, thereby vitiating consent to subsequent sexual activity under s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court treated the matter as a credibility case, applied the W. (D.) framework, and found significant implausibilities and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, while also identifying limitations in the accused's evidence.

The medical evidence and post-incident text message were held not to materially corroborate the complainant's account.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt, and the Crown failed to prove absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with trafficking fentanyl, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter following the overdose death of an acquaintance.

In pretrial motions, the Crown sought to admit two police statements, while the defence sought to exclude the statements and text messages found on the deceased's cell phone.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of s. 10 of the Charter.

However, the court ruled that the warrantless search of the deceased's cell phone at the scene violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court excised the text messages from the search warrant information, found the remaining grounds insufficient, and excluded the text message evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Sentencing decision involving guilty pleas to multiple offences including sexual assaults, drug trafficking, assault, and threatening against several young women over an extended period.

The court treated denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, proportionality, victim harm, breach of probation, and youth of certain victims as significant aggravating considerations, while also giving substantial weight to the offender's guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult upbringing, and Gladue factors.

Applying the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, the court found systemic and background factors materially reduced moral blameworthiness but did not eliminate the need for a penitentiary-range sentence.

Enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond 1.5 to 1 was refused.

A global sentence of 72 months less 62 months' credit, leaving 10 further months in custody followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and attempt to obstruct justice after breaking into a home and repeatedly stabbing three victims who had implicated his brother in a previous crime.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 5 years, citing the offender's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The court emphasized the devastating impact on the victims and the need for public protection, sentencing the offender to 8 years imprisonment less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking after a police officer found cocaine in his rental vehicle following a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for a criminal investigation and not a valid stop under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The court also found that the officer's demands for the rental agreement and questions about the accused's travel itinerary constituted unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the multiple serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the drugs under section 24(2).