Jordan Donich

The applicant, Taylor Javer, facing charges of accessing and possession of child pornography, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from electronic devices seized under a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the search was conducted unreasonably due to a lack of detailed police notes, a sweeping search of all images/videos, and the failure to apply a date filter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while detailed notes are encouraged, their absence did not render the search unreasonable given the officer's credible testimony and the comprehensive LACE report.

The court also found the broad search of images/videos and the lack of a date filter reasonable, citing the nature of child pornography investigations and the unreliability of timestamps.

Sentencing for historic sexual offences against children involving multiple victims, including sexual touching committed in positions of familial and trusted adult authority.

The court emphasized the gravity, inherent wrongfulness, and lasting harm of child sexual abuse, relying on recent Supreme Court guidance stressing denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

Although the judge expressed serious reservations about the leniency of a community-based sentence for offences of this nature, the court applied the public interest test governing joint submissions and accepted a joint proposal for a conditional sentence because rejection would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A concurrent conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed, followed by three years' probation, together with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, and weapons prohibition orders.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to sexual interference and making sexually explicit material available to a child, arising from repeated sexual abuse by a stepfather of a child between ages 10 and 13 over a period of years.

After a Gardiner hearing, the court found additional aggravating facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including anal penetration on two occasions and grooming statements normalizing sexual attraction between stepdaughter and stepfather.

Applying the guidance in Friesen and the statutory sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the abuse of trust, repeated abuse, the victim's age, and the significant harm caused.

A penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed on the sexual interference count, with three years concurrent on the child pornography-facilitation count, together with DNA, SOIRA, prohibition, no-contact, and weapons orders.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person (the niece of his wife) following a trial.

The offences occurred on July 29, 2017, during a backyard barbeque at the accused's residence.

The first incident involved touching over clothing while the victim was lying down in the basement; the second involved digital penetration in the living room later that evening.

The accused was in a position of trust toward the victim.

At sentencing, the accused absconded to Brazil, and sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the sexual assault convictions as duplicitous with the sexual exploitation convictions.

The accused received a global sentence of 10 months imprisonment with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition, DNA designation, SOIRA registration, and probation conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at the accused's residence and seized a hard drive containing 41,888 still images and 630 video files of child pornography, obtained over a four-month period from March to July 2014.

The materials consisted primarily of pubescent and early adolescent children in sexually provocative poses, with very few depictions of explicit sexual activity.

The accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated with police, and underwent psychiatric assessment and therapy.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought eight months.

The court imposed eight months imprisonment, finding that while the size of the collection was aggravating, the nature of the materials was less depraved than in comparable cases, and significant mitigating factors were present.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a high-speed collision with a business sign and hydro pole.

The Crown's case relied on blood alcohol analysis, but the court found serious and material inconsistencies in the chain of custody evidence regarding the blood sample, rendering it impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the tested blood was the accused's blood.

Consequently, the over 80 charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, including observations of alcohol odour on the accused's breath, slurred speech, false identification, and the violent nature of the collision in safe driving conditions.