Mareike Newhouse

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

He argued that the Crown improperly adjourned his bail hearing, police violated his right to silence, and a correctional officer directed another inmate to assault him while in pre-trial custody.

The court found that while the bail adjournment was improper, it was done in good faith and did not warrant a stay.

The court also found no violation of the right to silence and insufficient evidence that the correctional officer directed the assault.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Sentencing decision for offences of possessing child pornography, accessing child pornography, and making child pornography available arising from online chats and a search revealing thousands of child pornography images and videos.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also weighing the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, cooperation, and psychiatric evidence indicating a low risk of contact offending but risk of future internet-based recidivism.

Comparable authorities did not support the defence request for a 12-month custodial sentence.

A sentence of 18 months' jail and 3 years' probation was imposed, together with DNA, SOIRA, prohibition, non-communication, weapons, and forfeiture orders, while a broader prohibition on attending parks and pools was refused.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel on the basis that counsel had a realistic prospect of becoming a witness at the accused's upcoming murder trial.

Counsel had interviewed a potential alternate suspect alone and was personally involved in discovering a piece of physical evidence (a crutch) allegedly linked to the murder.

The court granted the application, finding a realistic risk that counsel would need to testify to rehabilitate the witness or explain the discovery of the evidence, which would compromise his role as an advocate.

Consequently, the court granted the defence's application to adjourn the trial.

The court denied the accused's application for bail, finding detention necessary on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds given his extensive criminal record and history of failing to appear.