Lisa Miles

The accused, Marc Leduc, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, attempted choking to overcome resistance, break and enter, and breach of probation against Rita Denobriga.

The offences, which occurred in Ms. Denobriga's apartment, involved premeditation, the use of a knife, prolonged violence, and a life-threatening chokehold, causing severe physical and emotional trauma to the victim.

The court considered Leduc's extensive criminal record, including two prior first-degree murder convictions (under appeal), and his lack of remorse or psychiatric explanation.

Emphasizing protection of society, denunciation, and deterrence, the court concluded that Leduc posed an ongoing danger.

A life sentence was imposed for the aggravated sexual assault and attempted choking, with concurrent sentences for the other offences, and parole ineligibility set at 10 years.

After a jury returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder, the accused applied under ss. 672.11(b) and 672.12(1) of the Criminal Code for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether he was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder at the time of the offence.

The defence relied on the accused’s extensive psychiatric history, prior NCR finding, prior unfitness to stand trial, and evidence during trial suggesting untreated mental illness.

The Crown argued the application failed to establish reasonable grounds because there was no supporting expert medical opinion linking the illness to criminal responsibility at the time of the offence.

The court held that the threshold for ordering an assessment is low and requires only reasonable grounds based on a credibly based probability that the assessment is necessary.

Given the accused’s documented mental health history and the evidentiary record, the court found the threshold met and ordered the assessment.

In a first degree murder prosecution, the Crown brought an application seeking to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased and evidence of the accused’s prior discreditable conduct.

The proposed evidence included statements made by the deceased to friends, family members, a building superintendent, and a police officer describing her fear of the accused and his alleged treatment of her.

The court held that many of the statements were admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and, where necessary, under the principled approach, finding sufficient necessity and threshold reliability.

The court further determined that evidence of prior discreditable conduct was admissible because it was relevant to animus, motive, and the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Certain specific statements and unrelated misconduct evidence were excluded.

Following a jury conviction on six counts including sexual exploitation of a young person, sexual assault, and assault involving members of the offender’s family, the court imposed sentence.

The offender repeatedly sexually abused his step‑daughter over several years and sexually assaulted his spouse, while also exercising coercive and violent control over the household.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, the victim’s age, repeated conduct, grooming, and significant psychological harm to family members.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence and the range identified in comparable appellate authorities, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The Kienapple principle required a conditional stay of one sexual assault conviction as duplicative of the sexual exploitation count.

The accused were charged with seventeen counts including uttering threats, forcible confinement, extortion, assault, intimidation, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and firearms offences.

The charges arose from incidents occurring in late November and early December 2013 in an apartment building in Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused took over an apartment and committed various crimes within it.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the accused guilty on several counts related to possession of a prohibited firearm, threatening with a firearm, and extortion, but acquitted them on other counts including unlawful confinement and various assault-related charges.

The offender, a former teacher, was convicted of historical sexual offences (indecent assault, gross indecency, buggery) against two of his former students.

At sentencing, the Crown sought to admit extrinsic evidence of similar discreditable conduct involving other students, which the court admitted for the limited purpose of assessing the offender's character.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious breach of trust and the aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a SOIRA order.

On a voir dire in a sexual assault prosecution, the Crown sought admission of two videotaped police interviews with the accused.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to inducements, oppression, police persistence despite repeated assertions of the right to silence, and attempts to undermine counsel’s advice.

Applying the confessions rule from R. v. Oickle and related jurisprudence, the court assessed threats or inducements, oppression, and the accused’s ability to exercise a meaningful choice to speak.

Although certain police tactics raised concerns, including repeated questioning after assertions of silence and comments undermining counsel, the court found no nexus between those tactics and the accused’s decision to speak.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both statements were voluntary and admissible.

During a jury trial for historical sexual assault involving two complainants, the Crown sought to admit the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the counts relating to the other.

Applying the framework from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the proposed evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect.

Although certain similarities existed, including allegations of sexual acts occurring after the accused provided alcohol and took students to private residences, the court found significant dissimilarities in the nature of the interactions and the presence or absence of grooming behaviour.

The court also noted the fifteen‑year gap between the allegations.

These differences undermined any meaningful unity between the incidents.

The court concluded that the probative value did not outweigh the potential prejudice and refused to admit the evidence as similar fact evidence.

During a jury trial for historical sexual assault involving a teacher and two former students, the court made four evidentiary rulings.

The court ordered the disclosure of unedited psychologist notes to the defence since the witness would use them to refresh his memory.

The court allowed the Crown to adduce some, but not all, evidence of uncharged discreditable conduct to complete the narrative of the relationship.

The court permitted a retired psychologist to testify based on past recollection recorded to explain the complainant's actions.

Finally, the court allowed the Crown to call the complainant's wife to rebut an implicit allegation of recent fabrication arising from the defence's cross-examination regarding the complainant's deteriorating memory.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter arising from a fatal apartment building fire started when he lit an artificial Christmas wreath as a prank and left the scene.

Two residents died from burns and smoke inhalation and extensive property damage resulted.

The court considered the objective foreseeability of bodily harm required for unlawful act manslaughter, the offender’s youth, remorse, guilty plea, and lack of subjective intent to cause harm.

Aggravating factors included the extreme recklessness of igniting a fire in a residential hallway and the loss of two lives.

A penitentiary sentence reflecting denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation was imposed.

Sentencing decision following a guilty plea to unlawful act manslaughter and failing to attend court.

The accused struck a stranger without provocation, knocking the victim from a bicycle and subsequently kicking and stomping him while he lay on the ground, resulting in fatal head injuries.

Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, gratuitous post‑assault violence, the offender’s conduct after the offence, and breaches of bail culminating in a failure to attend court.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth at the time of the offence, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.

The court imposed a custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the offender’s youth.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences involving a young person in a relationship of dependency, as well as assault-related offences.

The trial centred on credibility, with the court applying the framework from R. v. W.(D.) to assess conflicting testimony between the complainant and defence witnesses.

The court accepted the complainant’s detailed and consistent evidence, finding it corroborated in part by contemporaneous writings and surrounding circumstances.

The accused’s denial and supporting testimony from family members were rejected as unreliable and biased.

The court convicted the accused on four sexual offence counts and one count of simple assault but acquitted on a separate assault count and on assault with a weapon.