W. Jaksa

Sentencing for possession of child pornography arising from 24 videos discovered on a workplace-related USB drive.

The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Friesen, emphasizing the gravity of sexual offences against children and the need for meaningful denunciation and deterrence, while also treating the offender's prolonged childhood sexual abuse, addiction recovery, remorse, insight, guilty plea, and low risk to children as highly mitigating.

Although the court stated that an ordinary first offender possessing similar material would generally attract eight to ten months' custody, it held this was an exceptional case warranting a one-year conditional sentence followed by three years' probation.

The court also imposed forfeiture, SOIRA registration, a DNA order, and a tailored ten-year internet prohibition under s. 161(d), but declined broader s. 161(b) and (c) orders for lack of evidence of risk to children.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained following a breach of recognizance.

The court accepted that a material change existed due to a revised release plan including strict house arrest, continuous supervision by sureties, and electronic monitoring.

While the court found the proposed plan addressed the secondary ground concerning risk of further offences, the tertiary ground remained decisive.

Given the extremely serious allegations involving kidnapping, violent assault, extortion, and impersonating a police officer, together with the strength of the Crown’s evidence and the accused’s prior breach of release conditions, detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused failed to discharge the reverse onus required to justify release.

The Crown sought mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash preliminary inquiry discharges on several drug and firearms-related offences.

The court examined whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence and by exceeding the limited weighing permitted when assessing circumstantial evidence under the committal test.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider key evidence linking the accused to a residence containing methamphetamine and failed to consider direct expert evidence linking firearms to gun boxes found in a storage unit.

Those failures constituted jurisdictional error requiring intervention.

However, the court held there was insufficient evidence to support committal of one accused on ammunition-related charges tied to the storage unit.