Lisa Jacek

The Crown sought a long-term offender (LTO) declaration and a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO) against the offender, Jeffrey Bluecloud, following his conviction for multiple bank robberies and associated charges.

The offender conceded LTO status but sought a lower reformatory sentence and a 5-year LTSO.

The court designated the offender as an LTO, imposing a further sentence of 15 months in a provincial reformatory and a 7-year LTSO.

The decision emphasized public safety through rehabilitation, considering the offender's Indigenous background and the unsuitability of a federal penitentiary sentence due to likely segregation preventing access to programming.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault causing bodily harm, assault, and forcible confinement.

The central issue was consent, with conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court found the complainant generally credible but noted issues with her testimony regarding intoxication and the sequence of events.

While the defendant's character was poor, his testimony on consent was clear and precise.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent for sexual assault and the elements of assault and forcible confinement.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, Agyei De Roche, was charged with sexual assault following a sexual touching of the complainant, R.D., after a recording session.

The defence argued mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court examined the interactions between the accused and the complainant, both online and during the podcast recording, and found that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court determined that the accused relied on ambiguous conduct and ignored explicit rejections, making the defence of mistaken belief in consent unavailable.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) was infringed.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was nearly 35 months.

The court analyzed the periods of delay, particularly focusing on delays caused by the applicant's change of counsel.

The court concluded that the deductible defence delay reduced the net delay to below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault after attacking a 'good Samaritan' who intervened in a bar fight to help an unconscious victim.

The offender kicked the victim to the ground and continued to assault him while he was in a fetal position, causing serious injuries including a torn ACL and fractured foot bones.

The Crown sought 18-24 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

The court sentenced the first-time offender to 9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years of probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's remorse, ADHD diagnosis, and rehabilitative prospects.

A fourteen-year-old youth was charged with second degree murder as a party to the offence (instigator) in connection with the stabbing death of a fifteen-year-old victim.

The Crown sought detention under section 29(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that while the youth had no prior criminal record, extensive Children's Aid Society records documented a pattern of severe and escalating violence toward his mother since May 2017, including assaults with weapons, threats, and dangerous behavior.

The court determined that detention was necessary for public protection and the safety of the victim (the mother), finding a substantial likelihood the youth would commit serious offences if released.

The court rejected the proposed release plan involving the mother and family members as sureties, finding they could not adequately control the youth's violent behavior and impulsivity.

The applicant, Zekrollah Walizadah, sought an order under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for first-degree murder.

The pre-screening judge applied the "substantial likelihood" threshold, considering the applicant's character, conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, victim information, and remorse.

Despite positive conduct in custody, the applicant's continued failure to fully accept responsibility for the planned and deliberate nature of the murder and the extreme violence inflicted was a significant negative factor.

The application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously agree to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay impaired driving charges against the respondent due to a violation of s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found seven weeks of Crown delay related to disclosure and six and a half months of institutional delay, along with actual prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in characterizing the delay periods, which should have been classified as neutral inherent time requirements or defence delay.

The court also found palpable and overriding factual errors in the trial judge's assessment of prejudice, noting the respondent's own conduct caused substantial delays.

The stay of proceedings was set aside and the matter remitted for trial.