Linda McCurdy

Sentencing following convictions for incest and breach of a release order arising from a father-daughter sexual relationship that began after the complainant, as a vulnerable young adult, located the offender and moved into his home.

The court held that consent was irrelevant to incest, emphasized denunciation as the overriding sentencing principle, and treated the complainant's vulnerability, the birth of a child, the offender's introduction of illegal drugs, his blame-shifting, and his criminal record as major aggravating factors.

While the court distinguished authorities involving child victims, it relied on the Supreme Court's guidance on sexual-offence sentencing to craft a significant penitentiary sentence.

The offender received 8 years for incest and 18 months concurrent for the release-order breach, with ancillary orders and enhanced credit for presentence custody.

Ransford Trevor Hewitt was found guilty after trial of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm in a motor vehicle, occupying a vehicle with prohibited devices (replica firearms), and two counts of breach of a release order.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of possessing a loaded firearm in public with intent to confront someone, and mitigating factors including no prior criminal record, family support, and mental health issues.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a total sentence of 36 months imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody and time spent on house arrest.

Ancillary orders for forfeiture of firearms, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order were also made.

This is a ruling on a section 715.1 application by the defendant A.T. to admit a child victim's videotaped statement as evidence in a trial involving allegations of assault.

The Crown opposed, arguing the child did not "describe the acts complained of" as required by the section, as the child denied the alleged assault (hair pulling) in her statement.

The court found that a non-verbal denial (shaking head "no") constitutes a "description" under section 715.1, and that the section does not require an affirmative or guilt-consistent description.

The application was granted, emphasizing the section's purpose to preserve the child's earliest recollection and aid truth discovery, regardless of whether the statement supports the prosecution's theory.

The offender, James Lachine, was found guilty of aggravated assault and forcible confinement.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered the serious nature of the multi-assailant beating, the significant injuries to the victim, and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

The court also addressed the offender's claim of Indigenous heritage, finding no sufficient connection to his current circumstances to warrant special consideration under Gladue principles.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and considering aggravating factors like the violent nature of the attack and the offender's criminal history, alongside mitigating factors such as partner support and sobriety, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused, two American citizens, were charged with importing marijuana and possessing a prohibited firearm after mistakenly crossing the border into Canada.

They intended to stay at a hotel in Detroit but took a wrong turn onto the bridge to Windsor.

The court accepted their evidence that they had no intention of entering Canada and were unaware they had done so until they were on the bridge.

Finding that the requisite mens rea for the offences was absent, the court acquitted both accused on all charges.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for a testimonial aid (screen) for the complainant, A.F., in a historical sexual assault trial.

The complainant expressed extreme fear and emotional distress at the prospect of facing the respondent, citing panic attacks, sleepless nights, flashbacks, and increased alcohol consumption after the preliminary hearing.

The respondent opposed the application, asserting his common law right to face his accuser and arguing that the Crown had not provided persuasive evidence that the screen was necessary to obtain a full and candid account from the witness.

The court granted the application, finding that the screen would facilitate a full and candid account from the witness, considering her age, diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder by her family physician, and the nature of the allegations.

The court also emphasized society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.