Leonard Kim

The self-represented offender brought an application for a mistrial and to introduce fresh evidence prior to a dangerous offender hearing, alleging non-disclosure and ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding no reliable evidentiary record of non-disclosure.

The court also dismissed the mistrial application, ruling it lacked jurisdiction post-verdict to declare a mistrial and finding no evidence of a miscarriage of justice.

The self-represented offender applied to adjourn his dangerous offender hearing pending the outcome of several appeals at the Court of Appeal, including an appeal of the predicate offence conviction.

The court dismissed the application, noting that the appeals had not yet been scheduled and that further delaying the sentencing hearing, which had already been delayed for over seven years, would cause unacceptable fragmentation of the criminal proceedings and prejudice the public interest.

Sentencing for child luring following a guilty plea where the accused engaged in months of sexually explicit online communications with two undercover officers he believed were 14 and 13 years old.

The court held that, under the post-Friesen sentencing framework, denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives, and that the absence of actual child victims in a sting operation did not materially reduce moral blameworthiness.

Aggravating factors included the very young ages of the purported victims, the prolonged and deliberate grooming conduct, detailed planning for in-person sexual contact, and the intention to exploit two children.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, counselling, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending, and collateral employment consequences.

A conditional sentence was rejected as unfit, and a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation and ancillary orders, was imposed.

The Crown brought an application to appoint amicus curiae for the self-represented accused in a complex dangerous offender proceeding.

The accused opposed the appointment, asserting his right to represent himself.

The court granted the application, finding that the complexity of the dangerous offender hearing, the potential for an indeterminate sentence, and the need to ensure a fair trial necessitated the appointment of amicus to assist the court with legal issues and cross-examination of the complainant.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The father conceded the finding but argued that a trial was required for disposition, proposing that the child be placed in his care under a supervision order while residing with the paternal grandparents.

The court granted the finding that the child was in need of protection but concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition and access.

The court ordered a mini-trial with focused oral testimony to determine whether a supervision order or extended society care was in the child's best interests.

Following a criminal trial involving sexual offences against a child, the court found the complainant credible and reliable on the core allegations notwithstanding inaccuracies about dates and some peripheral details.

The central issues were opportunity and identity, with the defence arguing that the complainant may have confused the accused with other male partners of her mother.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the law governing child witnesses, and the caution applicable to recognition evidence, the court held that the complainant’s repeated interactions with the accused, corroborative surrounding evidence, and the totality of the record established identity and opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Findings of guilt were entered on counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

Sentencing for a mid-level trafficker convicted after trial of possessing significant quantities of fentanyl and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, possessing a loaded prohibited handgun, resisting arrest, and possessing proceeds of crime.

The court held that trafficking fentanyl in a vulnerable Northern Ontario community, near an elementary school, while armed with a loaded concealed handgun, substantially increased both the gravity of the offences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, imposed consecutive sentences for fentanyl trafficking and the firearm offence, and treated Charter breaches, anti-Black racism social context, traumatic childhood history, family separation consequences, and stringent bail and remand conditions as mitigating factors.

A global 12-year sentence was reduced to 10 years under the totality principle, with additional pre-sentence credit.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual interference and sexual assault involving his young daughter.

The judge found the complainant was trying to be truthful, but her evidence was not reliable enough because of material inconsistencies, assumptions filling gaps in memory, and the highly leading manner of the police video interview.

The judge also found the accused to be a credible witness and was not prepared to reject his denial.

Because the evidence as a whole left a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ransom Dashner to a 12-month conditional sentence order to be served in the community for Assault with a Weapon and Breach of Probation.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors reflecting Dashner’s Indigenous heritage, intergenerational trauma, and rehabilitative efforts including sobriety and treatment programs.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offence involving an imitation firearm used in a violent street fight while Dashner was on probation.

The decision balances the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint, rejecting a suspended sentence and probation as insufficient given the offender’s history and the public safety risk.

The accused was arrested for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking following surveillance and confidential informant tips.

A search of his vehicle incident to arrest yielded a loaded handgun, ammunition, large quantities of drugs, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the arrest and searches were lawful, but found a breach of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to a delay in notifying the accused of his change in jeopardy after the firearm and drugs were found.

Applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

On the trial proper, the court found the circumstantial evidence proved the possession offences beyond a reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty of all charges, including resisting arrest.

Following convictions for sexual assault and making sexually explicit material available to a child to facilitate a sexual assault, the court imposed sentence for offences committed against a 12-year-old child in a babysitting context.

Applying the child-sexual-offence sentencing guidance in Friesen, the court held that denunciation and deterrence had to be given primary weight, while still considering rehabilitation, restraint, parity, and totality.

The court treated as aggravating the accused's position of trust, the victim's young age and vulnerability, the use of pornography to facilitate the assault, the severe psychological harm, and the victim's Indigenous identity in the context of intergenerational trauma.

A consecutive sentence was imposed to reflect the distinct legal interests engaged by the two offences, for a total of 36 months less a day, together with multiple ancillary protective orders.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and making sexually explicit material available to a child after allegedly assaulting a 12‑year‑old while babysitting.

The court found evidence of advertent collusion and inadvertent tainting between the complainant and her mother that created reasonable doubt regarding some alleged acts, including oral sex and additional touching in the living room.

However, the court accepted the complainant’s core testimony that the accused invited her into a bedroom, showed her pornography, and then sucked her breasts while discussing masturbation and his own childhood abuse.

Those elements were independently corroborated by aspects of the accused’s testimony and surrounding circumstances.

The accused’s account that the complainant masturbated in his presence was rejected as implausible and inconsistent with common sense.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and making sexually explicit material available to a child; the sexual interference count was stayed under Kienapple.

This decision concerns the sentencing of the defendant, P.H., who was convicted of one count of Sexual Interference involving a child victim, M.H., over multiple occasions when she was 3-4 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the profound breach of trust, the victim's extreme vulnerability, the multiple incidents, and the use of physical force.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's status as a first-time offender for sexual offences, his struggles with addiction and mental health issues, and a low risk of sexual re-offending as supported by expert opinion and a decade without further sexual offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 3-4 years and a 20-year SOIRA order, while the Defence sought an upper reformatory term of 18-24 months and opposed the SOIRA order.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years less a day imprisonment, followed by a two-year probation order, and various ancillary orders, but dismissed the request for a SOIRA order, finding it grossly disproportionate given the low risk of sexual recidivism.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant, Makenna Desbiens, to testify via CCTV in a trial involving 11 charges of intimate partner violence against Anthony Grantham.

The complainant, diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and PTSD, testified that she would be fearful and intimidated if required to testify in the same courtroom as the accused, which would negatively impact her ability to give a full and candid account.

The court considered factors under section 486.2(3), including the complainant's mental health, the nature of the offences, and the relationship with the accused.

The court found that CCTV testimony would facilitate a more fulsome and honest account and would not compromise the defence's ability to assess demeanor.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused, Dakota Duncan, faced five criminal charges arising from an incident with the complainant (Ms. L.).

The court found the accused guilty of simple assault (for hitting the complainant after she told him to stop), sexual assault (for repeatedly hitting the complainant's vagina with a wooden paddle without consent), and uttering threats to cause bodily harm.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault (vaginal intercourse) and sexual assault (anal intercourse), finding that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent for these acts.

The accused was also acquitted of taking a motor vehicle without consent, due to the complainant's lack of recollection regarding consent for a drug purchase.

Finally, the accused was found guilty of mischief for willfully damaging the vehicle while driving intoxicated.

The accused, James Williamson, was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after inflicting multiple stab wounds on the complainant, Steven Leclair.

The central issue at trial was Williamson's claim of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected Williamson's testimony, finding him to be the aggressor and that he did not reasonably believe force was being used or threatened against him.

The court further found that even if such a belief existed, his response of stabbing an unarmed individual four times in the back was unreasonable and excessive.

Additionally, the court concluded that Williamson possessed both the knife and a wooden stick for a purpose dangerous to the public.

The Crown successfully disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and Williamson was found guilty on all counts.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual interference and sexual assault against P.H., the biological father of the complainant, M.H. The allegations spanned from 2011 to 2014, when M.H. was between three and four years old.

M.H. testified at age 13, describing multiple incidents of sexual touching of her vagina by the accused, primarily in the bathroom during bath/shower times when her mother was absent.

The defence challenged the reliability of M.H.'s historical memory due to her young age at the time of the incidents and inconsistencies in her testimony.

The court, applying principles for assessing child witnesses, found M.H.'s evidence credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies and "blended memories," as her core account of sexual touching by her father remained consistent.

The accused's denial was rejected as evasive and unreliable.

P.H. was found guilty of sexual interference, and the sexual assault charge was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

This case concerns an application by the accused, Taiga Building Products Ltd., for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial, related to an Occupational Health and Safety Act charge following a workplace fatality, spanned 11 days over nearly two years.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating a total delay of 23 months and 29 days.

After deducting 80 days for defence delay and 39 days for a discrete COVID-19 related event, the net delay was 610 days (20.05 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the delay was unreasonable, partly due to the Crown's unsuccessful expert qualification application and late disclosure.

A stay of proceedings was entered.

This trial concerned an application for spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases.

The respondent conceded entitlement, leaving the quantum and retroactivity as the primary issues.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility, intentionally underemployed, and misrepresented his financial situation and relationship with a new partner.

The court imputed the respondent's income based on a three-year average and the applicant's income, ordering indefinite spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Retroactive support was also ordered from the date of the application.

This case concerns a dispute over decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and parenting time for two young children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, proposing reduced parenting time for the respondent father and a change in the children's school and daycare for her convenience.

The respondent father initially sought to maintain joint decision-making and equal parenting time, later seeking sole decision-making and primary residence due to the applicant's unilateral actions.

The court found the applicant's actions, including unilaterally changing the child's school and daycare and misrepresenting an expired court order, demonstrated a lack of cooperation and disregard for the children's best interests.

The court also noted the applicant's history of domestic violence against the respondent.

The respondent's efforts to address past substance abuse were acknowledged.

The court ultimately granted sole decision-making responsibility to the respondent father and ordered the continuation of equal, week-about parenting time, with the children remaining at their current school and daycare in the respondent's community.