M. Biddulph

The offenders, a mother and father, were convicted of multiple offences against their children.

Both were convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching against their young daughter.

The mother was also convicted of one count of assault against a son.

The father was convicted of 10 counts of physical assault and one count of uttering a threat against five of the children.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The mother was sentenced to a global term of 6 years' imprisonment.

The father was sentenced to a global term of 8 years' imprisonment.

Ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibitions, SOIRA, and s. 161 orders were also imposed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a penalty decision ordering his resignation or dismissal following a guilty plea to two counts of discreditable conduct related to intimate partner violence against two different complainants.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in principle on several grounds, including the treatment of McNeil reporting requirements, double-counting the Service's Intimate Partner Violence Unit as an aggravating factor, discounting character letters, and finding he could not be rehabilitated.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle in the Hearing Officer's application of dispositional factors and confirming the penalty of dismissal.

The appellant challenged both conviction and sentence arising from a historic sexual exploitation prosecution involving a youth pastor and a 13-year-old complainant.

The court rejected the conviction appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, did not reduce the case to a credibility contest, and was entitled to rely on corroborative evidence from an independent witness in assessing credibility and reliability.

The court also held that the reliability analysis disclosed no reversible error and attracted appellate deference.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed on consent because the conditional sentence imposed exceeded the maximum custodial sentence available at the time of the offence, and the sentence was varied to time served with probation removed.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The proceedings spanned over 19 years, involving three trials, an appeal, and a dangerous offender application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the net pre-verdict delay was below the Jordan ceiling after deducting significant periods of defence delay—including the accused absconding and repeatedly changing counsel—and exceptional circumstances such as a mistrial.

The court also found the post-verdict delay reasonable, as it was justified by the complexity of the dangerous offender application, further defence delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to abandon reliance on a court-ordered psychiatrist whose evidence was challenged in cross-examination, and instead tender the evidence of a new psychiatrist.

The defence brought an abuse of process motion under s. 7 of the Charter, arguing the Crown was seeking an improper litigation advantage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Crown was attempting to provide the court with as much information as possible to assess the offender's risk, rather than acting for an oblique motive.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft pleaded guilty to 60 charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including 58 counts of unlawfully importing vehicles that did not conform to prescribed vehicle emissions standards and two counts of providing misleading information.

The company admitted to installing defeat devices in approximately 128,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada between 2008 and 2015, which allowed the vehicles to pass emissions testing while emitting substantially higher nitrogen oxide levels during normal driving conditions.

The court imposed a fine of $196,500,000, the largest environmental fine in Canadian history at that time, reflecting the severity of the deliberate deception, the environmental and health risks created, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.