Levi Karademir

Gregory Dale Walton, a declared Dangerous Offender (DO) serving a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), pled guilty to breaching his LTSO by consuming illicit drugs.

The court considered the appropriate sentence length, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation principles, particularly in light of Mr. Walton's substance addiction and prior breaches.

The judge enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to reflect harsh lockdown conditions and lack of access to rehabilitative programs, ultimately imposing an 18-month sentence with credit for time served.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Eric Oliha guilty of robbery, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and breach of probation based on evidence that he forcibly confined a woman in a McDonald's women's washroom stall, exerting control over her movements and exploiting her vulnerability.

The court emphasized that sexual assault can be established without explicit threats or physical contact if the accused's conduct creates an apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact that affronts sexual integrity.

The accused's control and confinement of the complainant, combined with his demands and the victim's fear, satisfied the elements of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as entirely unreliable.

Mr. Osbourne was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance.

He was found asleep in the driver's seat of his car with the engine running, while intoxicated.

The court first determined if the presumption of operation under s. 320.35 of the Criminal Code was rebutted, finding that Mr. Osbourne did not intend to set the vehicle in motion.

However, the court then assessed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Osbourne was in "care or control" of the vehicle, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault.

Despite Mr. Osbourne's good intentions, the court found that his conduct (being highly intoxicated, in a running vehicle, on a busy street, without a reliable plan or phone) created a realistic risk of danger to the public, either by inadvertently setting the car in motion or changing his mind to drive while impaired.

He was found guilty.

The Crown applied for an order permitting three Crown witnesses (the complainant and two friends) to testify remotely via video link from their homes in an assault causing bodily harm case.

The witnesses cited health and safety concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as travel and cost considerations.

The defence opposed the application, arguing that the witnesses' homes were unsuitable locations and that remote testimony would compromise the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the witnesses had legitimate personal reasons for remote testimony and that appropriate safeguards could maintain trial fairness and the solemnity of proceedings.