Lerren Lois Ella Ducharme

The court sentenced Michael Allan McIndoo for multiple offences including child luring, making and possessing child pornography, extortion, and breaches of a prohibition order.

The decision reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, the applicable legal principles, and comparable case law.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9.25 years, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and child protection, and made several ancillary orders including SOIRA, DNA, forfeiture, and non-communication orders.

After a five-day judge-alone trial, James Nathan McLarnon was found guilty of sexual assault, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault with choking, assault, uttering threats to cause death, and unlawful confinement, all arising from intimate partner violence against the same complainant, M.C., between 2020 and 2021.

The Crown sought a seven-year global sentence; the defence proposed three years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five and a half years, reduced by pre-sentence custody and a modest "Duncan" credit for harsh pre-trial conditions, resulting in a final sentence of two years and 234 days.

The decision details the aggravating and mitigating factors, the application of the totality principle, and the ancillary orders imposed.

After a trial, the court considered whether a modified doll seized from the accused’s residence amounted to child pornography and whether the accused knowingly possessed it.

The judge found that the doll was a visual representation whose dominant characteristic was the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the sexual organ of a person under 18.

The judge rejected the accused’s evidence that he did not appreciate the doll’s childlike qualities and found beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the nature of the item.

The court also held that the narrow Sharpe exception for purely self-created, privately held expressive material did not apply because the doll was made from pre-existing objects created by others.

This sentencing decision addresses the offence of voyeurism committed by Abinash Samal, who used a disguised spy camera in an Airbnb rental bedroom to secretly record renters engaged in explicit sexual activity.

The Court considered the aggravating factors including the breach of trust, the serious violation of privacy and sexual autonomy, and the retention of videos for prurient use.

The accused pleaded guilty and had no prior record but showed little insight into his offending.

The Court imposed a six-month jail sentence followed by two years probation, rejecting a conditional sentence due to concerns about public safety, the accused’s lack of honesty, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The decision also discusses relevant risk assessments and compares similar cases, emphasizing the seriousness of voyeurism in private rental settings.

The offender, Ashlyn Chrisjohn, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop after an accident causing death.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's significant responsibility, and mitigating factors including a Gladue report detailing her personal circumstances and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought concurrent five-year terms, while the defence sought time served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing goals, finding that a sentence of time served or a conditional sentence would be inappropriate given the egregious nature of the offences and the high blameworthiness.

A four-year custodial sentence was imposed for dangerous driving causing death, with a concurrent three-year sentence for failing to stop, along with a driving prohibition and DNA order.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence.

The warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on a confidential informant.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and a judicial summary, concluding that the issuing justice had sufficient credible and reliable evidence to find reasonable grounds for the search.

The court further held that even if a s. 8 breach had occurred, the evidence (a handgun) would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and break, enter, and robbery following a violent home invasion.

The offender and three armed associates broke into a residence to confront the victim over a fraudulent investment, resulting in the victim being beaten and fatally shot.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the offence and the offender's high moral blameworthiness against mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and strong community support.

The court rejected the application of the Morris framework for anti-Black racism, finding no causal connection to the offences.

The offender was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a concurrent 2.5-year sentence for the break and enter, less credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The accused was charged with seven violent offences, including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, assault by choking, and uttering death threats, arising from an 18-month relationship with his former intimate partner.

The trial turned on the credibility of the parties, with the Crown relying on secret audio recordings made by the complainant that captured the accused's abusive behaviour.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding it implausible and contradicted by the recordings, and accepted the complainant's evidence.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant, charged with child pornography and luring offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, citing a 24.6-month delay to trial.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that the vast majority of the delay was caused by the Crown's lack of diligence in providing critical disclosure, not the pandemic.

As the net delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling and no exceptional circumstances mitigated the Crown's disclosure failures, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The offender pled guilty to possessing a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle without authorization.

The court considered the impact of systemic anti-black racism and the offender's experiences as a biracial youth, applying the principles from R. v. Morris.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, the court imposed a sentence of 3 years and 6 months, reduced to 25 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The defendant, Patrick Morgan, was found guilty of sexual assault involving unprotected intercourse with a profoundly intoxicated victim (K.L.) whom he had initially tried to help.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the breach of trust, the mens rea of recklessness, and significant mitigating factors including the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and personal hardships.

The Crown sought 12-18 months institutional incarceration, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge.

The court found that a conditional discharge was contrary to public interest due to the need for denunciation and general deterrence, but also that traditional incarceration was not fully appropriate given the unique circumstances and the defendant's strong rehabilitative prospects.

A conditional sentence of 16 months was imposed, to be served in the community with electronic monitoring, followed by 18 months probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after choking a sex worker to death, dismembering her body, and hiding her remains in his garage.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 12 to 13 years.

The court considered the offender's diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, his guilty plea, and the profound aggravating factors of the offence, including the vulnerability of the victim and the indignity to her remains.

The court sentenced the offender to mandatory life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 14 years.

The accused was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) for possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and under the Criminal Code for impaired driving by drug and several firearm-related offences.

A voir dire was conducted to address Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, 10(b)) concerning the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) demand, arrest, drug evaluation, and vehicle inventory search.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling the evidence admissible.

Subsequently, the accused was convicted on all CDSA counts and most Criminal Code counts, including impaired driving, possession of a restricted firearm, and various careless transportation and prohibited device charges.

Acquittals were entered for two ammunition-related counts due to the ammunition being non-functional.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the allowable limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on the basis that the arresting officer violated his Charter rights under section 8 by making an Approved Screen Device (ASD) demand without proper consideration of residual mouth-alcohol.

The officer had incorrectly believed a 10-minute wait was required rather than 15 minutes.

The court found the officer's reliance on the ASD fail result was objectively reasonable given the officer had no actual evidence of when the accused last consumed alcohol, and the mere possibility of recent consumption did not render the demand unreasonable.

The court convicted the accused.