Stephen Bernstein

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against a sex trade worker.

The incidents allegedly occurred during several meetings at hotels in Hamilton, Oakville, Niagara Falls, and Kitchener.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her admitted heavy alcohol consumption during the material times, limited details, and inconsistencies.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all charges and acquitted the accused.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and uttering threats against his step-daughter, with the abuse occurring when she was between 5 and 8 years old.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 4 years.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for adult sexual predators, the court sentenced the offender to 8 years for sexual assault and 1 year concurrent for uttering threats.

The court also granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit of 2:1 for time served during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown and the accused brought pre-trial motions in a severed first-degree murder trial.

The Crown sought to admit circumstantial evidence, including wiretaps, rap videos, and photographs, to prove the accused's association with a gang leader who allegedly directed the murder.

The court admitted the evidence, subject to editing to remove prejudicial content, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The accused brought a motion alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter motion, finding that after deducting defence delay, the net delay was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the case's complexity justified the timeline.

The Crown brought an application to determine the voluntariness of a video-recorded statement given by the accused, who was charged with first-degree murder.

The defence conceded that earlier statements made during a 911 call and to transporting officers were voluntary, but argued the video statement was obtained through oppression and an improper promise of psychiatric help.

The court applied the confessions rule from Oickle and found that the accused had an operating mind, understood his rights, and was not subjected to utterly intolerable conditions or inducements.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and ruled it admissible.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences, brought applications challenging the admissibility of evidence seized during a search of his residence.

He argued that the Step Six procedure under R. v. Garofoli for reviewing redacted search warrant informations violates section 7 of the Charter by denying the right to make full answer and defence.

He also argued that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient detail to justify the warrant, violating his section 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Step Six procedure provides a fair hearing in context and that the judicial summaries of the confidential informant's information provided sufficient grounds to uphold the warrant.

The accused pleaded guilty to common assault against his former common-law partner and failing to comply with a recognizance by consuming alcohol.

The assault occurred in the victim's home while their child was present.

The accused had a prior criminal record including domestic violence and was on bail for sexual assault at the time.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the domestic context and the child's presence against the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and the accused's recognition of his alcohol abuse problem.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody, credited as time served, followed by two years of probation.

In a criminal trial involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a minor, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to his former spouse and to his pastor were made to “persons in authority,” thereby requiring the Crown to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused argued that the statements were induced after both individuals threatened to contact police.

Applying the framework from Hodgson, the court held that the test requires both a subjective belief by the accused that the listener could influence the prosecution and an objectively reasonable basis for that belief grounded in a relationship with police or prosecutorial authorities.

The evidence did not establish that the accused believed either individual was acting as an agent of the police or prosecution.

Consequently, the recipients were not persons in authority and the confessions rule did not apply.

The statements were therefore admissible.

During a murder trial, the applicant sought to introduce the police statement and examination-in-chief of an unavailable witness from a previous related trial under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The applicant did not seek to introduce the cross-examination from the previous trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without the cross-examination or an adequate substitute, the threshold reliability of the statements was not established due to significant inconsistencies and credibility issues.