Leonard Kim

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.

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.

The Crown brought a Mohan application to qualify an expert ergonomist, Steve A. MacDonald, in line of sight, visibility, and human factors, in a case where the defendant was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court applied the two-stage Mohan/White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility.

It found the expert's opinion unnecessary as the trier of fact could form conclusions without it, given the direct eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

Furthermore, the court determined that the expert was not properly qualified in the specific narrow area of expertise due to limited prior experience in LOS assessments and reliance on unverified and contradictory factual assumptions.

The court concluded that the risks of admitting the unreliable and unnecessary evidence outweighed its potential benefits, and therefore dismissed the application to qualify the expert witness.

The respondent mother, S.M.L., sought leave to bring a status review application for her child, Z., who had been in extended society care and with the same foster parents for over two years.

The court applied the five-part test from Catholic Children's Aid of Metro Toronto v. B.A.F., which requires the applicant to demonstrate bona fide intent, that relief cannot be obtained otherwise, unusual circumstances, that the review would accomplish the Act's purposes, and a prima facie case.

The court found that the mother failed to establish unusual circumstances (as a parent's improvement alone is not unusual) and failed to establish a prima facie case, primarily due to ongoing instability in her life and the significant disruption it would cause to the special needs child's established stability and attachment with the foster parents.

The application for leave was dismissed, prioritizing the child's best interests and permanency.

In a child protection proceeding, foster parents T.O. and M.L. brought a motion for party status concerning the child A.L., who had been in their care since early 2020.

The biological parents, A.H. and D.L., opposed the motion, arguing that the foster parents' input could be obtained through the Children's Aid Society, which took no position.

The court applied a five-factor test to determine if party status should be granted, considering the foster parents' ability to present a plan in the child's best interest, their legal interest (long-term adoption objective), the necessity of their direct evidence given the child's young age and lack of OCL involvement, potential for delay, and the child's best interests.

The motion for party status was granted, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, real-time evidence from primary caregivers.