L. Guzzo

The applicant sought severance from her co-accused on the basis that a joint trial would result in significant prejudice and an unfair trial.

The applicant faces a charge of first degree murder while her co-accused faces second degree murder, despite the Crown alleging the same conduct of planning and deliberation against both.

The applicant argued that the differential charges would improperly lead the jury to conclude she is more culpable.

The Crown opposed severance, arguing that any prejudice would be eliminated through proper jury instructions.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding that the presumption of joint trial applies with particular force where co-accused are blaming each other, that the evidence is the same against both, and that jury instructions would adequately protect against any risk of prejudicial reasoning.

The offender, J.B., was found guilty after trial of sexual assault and sexual interference against J.M., the daughter of a friend and neighbor.

The offences occurred over approximately two years, when J.M. was between 10 and 12 years old, involving multiple incidents of sexual touching and vaginal penetration.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, the extended duration and high degree of physical interference, the offender's breach of a father-like position of trust, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and community support.

Gladue principles were considered but found to have a weak causal link to the offender's criminality.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence for sexual interference, with the sexual assault count stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order with the complainant and her mother while in custody, and a lifetime s. 161 order.

The offender was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and other offences against a sex trade worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7-9 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, history of domestic violence, and psychiatric assessments indicating a moderate to high risk of sexual re-offending.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, and designated him a long-term offender subject to a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect he was the driver and had alcohol in his body without relying on compelled statements made under highway traffic legislation.

The court excluded the accused's statements regarding being the driver and consuming alcohol as compelled statements under the Charter.

However, the court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was the driver based on witness identification at the accident scene, independent of the excluded statements.

The court admitted the Intoxilyzer results into evidence.