Kasia Batorska

The accused was convicted of kidnapping with a firearm, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm.

The offences involved the abduction of a lone female victim from a public parking lot at gunpoint, her transportation and confinement in a vehicle for hours, forced sexual assault at gunpoint, and her subsequent torture at a residential location.

A firearm was discharged at a Good Samaritan attempting to assist the victim.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years for kidnapping with a firearm, less three years pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in 10 years remaining custody.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts.

The court considered the severity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, the planning involved, the use of firearms, and the profound psychological and physical impact on the victim.

This decision involves Keyron Moore charged with multiple offences including kidnapping, sexual assault, and firearm-related offences.

The Crown proceeded by indictment, and after hearing extensive evidence including the complainant A.T.'s testimony, Mr. Moore's testimony, forensic evidence, and phone extraction reports, the court dismissed two counts due to no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The judge found Mr. Moore to be an active participant in a real and violent kidnapping and sexual assault, rejecting his claim of a fake kidnapping and consensual sexual activity.

The court relied heavily on the complainant's credible testimony, forensic evidence linking Mr. Moore to duct tape used in the offence, and phone communications indicating his involvement.

Mr. Moore was convicted on five counts and acquitted on one.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession and making available of a vast collection of child sexual abuse material by Brian Beard.

The court details the extensive volume and depravity of the material, including over 100,000 images and videos, and the long-term collection spanning over a decade.

The joint submission for a four-year custodial sentence, with credit for pre-trial custody, is accepted.

The decision emphasizes denunciation and deterrence, the ongoing harm to victims, and the community risk posed by the offender.

The sentence includes concurrent custody, forfeiture of devices, DNA sampling, a 20-year sex offender registry order, and a 15-year prohibition order with specific conditions to protect children.

The accused, a young person, was charged with kidnapping, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and failing to comply with a release order.

The victim was kidnapped at gunpoint by two older men, sexually assaulted in the vehicle by one of them, and then driven to a garage where the accused and two other young men were waiting.

The victim was tied to a chair and tortured by the other young men while the accused was present and provided a syringe with fentanyl used to threaten her.

Incident to arrest, the police obtained a penile swab from the accused without providing him an opportunity to have a parent or counsel present.

The court found that the police lacked objective reasonable grounds to believe the penile swab would afford evidence of the sexual assault, and that the manner of execution violated s. 8 of the Charter because the accused was not afforded enhanced procedural protections as a youth.

However, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not warranted, finding that a sentence reduction was an appropriate alternative remedy.

Findings of guilt were entered for kidnapping, forcible confinement, and failing to comply with a release order, while the sexual assault count was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for two orders under the Criminal Code: to allow the complainant to testify outside the courtroom via closed-circuit television or Zoom, and to permit a court support dog to be present during her testimony.

The complainant, a victim of kidnapping, sexual assault, and torture, expressed significant anxiety about testifying in court.

The court granted both orders, finding that these testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account from the complainant and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice, balancing the truth-seeking function with the accused's right to a fair trial.

H.A.Q., a young person with a substantial youth record, pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including discharge firearm and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

The Crown applied to have H.A.Q. sentenced as an adult, seeking a custodial term in the 6-7-year range.

The defence resisted, arguing for a significant youth sentence.

The court applied the two-pronged test under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to determine if an adult sentence was warranted, assessing diminished moral blameworthiness and sufficient accountability.

The court found the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted due to the young person's maturity, planning, and profit-driven criminality.

However, the court ultimately denied the Crown's application, concluding that a maximum youth sentence of 36 months custody and supervision, considering 20 months of presentence custody, would be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable, aligning with the lower end of the adult sentencing range for similar offences.

The defendant, Mordecai Gal, was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153 of the Criminal Code involving a 16-year-old complainant from a Muslim youth group.

The central issue was whether the defendant, as an older and respected member of the group, stood in a position of trust towards the complainant.

The court found a 12-year age difference, the defendant's role as a mentor and confidant, and the complainant's vulnerability due to an isolated home life.

The defendant exploited this vulnerability by encouraging a "temporary marriage" with promises of financial and housing independence, despite parental disapproval.

The court concluded that the defendant occupied a position of trust and exploited the complainant, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy while masked, and several firearms offences relating to a loaded, sawed-off SKS rifle.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record including prior armed robberies.

The Crown sought a 16-year global sentence, while the defence sought 9-10 years with significant credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the totality principle and considered the offender's rehabilitative prospects, imposing a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with five sets of robbery offences and several firearm-related offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video, cell phone data, and the recovery of a modified rifle.

The court found the accused guilty of the firearm charges and the robbery of the Sheppard Warden Pharmacy, concluding that the modified rifle found in his possession was the same one used in that robbery.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of the other four robberies, as the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove his identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across multiple counts of robbery to prove the identity of the accused in a rotating group context.

The accused was charged with six robberies of banks and pharmacies.

The court applied the Handy and Perrier frameworks to assess the degree of similarity between the robberies and whether there was independent evidence linking the accused to each offence.

The court found sufficient similarities, including the use of a single firearm held in a pronated fashion, the use of stolen older model Honda Civics, and the roles of the suspects.

The court also found sufficient independent linkage evidence, such as cell phone data and the recovery of a modified rifle, for five of the six robberies.

The application was granted for all counts except those related to one bank robbery.

The offender was convicted of administering a noxious substance and invitation to sexual touching in relation to his 11-year-old great-niece.

The court stayed a trafficking charge under the Kienapple principle.

The offender provided the child with crack cocaine and urged her to touch his penis.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and the victim was vulnerable.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 9 months for administering a noxious substance and 12 months for invitation to sexual touching, for a total of 21 months' incarceration.

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit for bail or lockdown conditions.

Jose Patricio Serrano and Victor Samaniego were found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

Samaniego initiated aggressive conduct at a nightclub, displayed a firearm, and passed it to Serrano, who then took it into the club and later attempted to discard it when approached by police.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the public nature of the offence, the loaded firearm with a removed serial number, and alcohol consumption.

Mitigating factors included Serrano's dated criminal record, remorse, and family support, and Samaniego's lack of prior record, remorse, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing purposes in firearms cases.

Serrano was sentenced to 31 months and 3 weeks imprisonment, and Samaniego to 45 months imprisonment, after accounting for pre-trial custody and house arrest credits.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The accused, DY, was charged with administering a noxious substance (cocaine), invitation to sexual touching, and trafficking cocaine involving his 11-year-old great-niece, TY.

The Crown withdrew a charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The court admitted videotaped interviews of the complainant and allowed her to testify outside the courtroom with a support person.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony.

The defence argued that the complainant self-administered the cocaine and fabricated the sexual touching allegations under her mother's influence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent, rejecting the defence's theories.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts, concluding that he caused the complainant to take cocaine with intent to aggrieve or annoy, invited her to sexual touching, and trafficked cocaine.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference, sexual assault, and threatening bodily harm against his younger sister.

The offences occurred over several years, beginning when the victim was nine years old, and escalated to include digital penetration and forced fellatio.

The sentencing judge applied the framework for determining disputed facts on sentence following a jury's general verdict.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including the victim's young age and the protracted nature of the abuse, against the offender's intellectual disability and mental health issues, the court imposed a total sentence of 36 months' imprisonment.

R.D. sought a stay of sexual assault, sexual interference, incest, and uttering threats charges due to alleged unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from arrest to the end of trial was 30 months and six days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court found that delay attributable to the defence, including failure to promptly complete a Legal Aid application and late filing of a third-party records application, brought the total delay below the 30-month ceiling.

Consequently, the onus shifted to the defence to prove unreasonable delay, which it failed to do, as its conduct was not consistently aimed at expediting proceedings, and the delay was not a marked departure from reasonable time requirements given local court considerations.

The application was dismissed.