Loc Welch

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his adopted daughter, and assault and assault by choking against his adopted son.

The sexual abuse was prolonged, highly invasive, and occurred over approximately two years.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the devastating impact on the victims, applying the principles from Friesen.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 10 years' imprisonment.

The court also granted a Crown application to delay parole eligibility under s. 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code, requiring the offender to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for full parole, citing the exceptional need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had been living in the community on a conditional discharge.

The hospital and parties recommended continuing the conditional discharge with reduced reporting and the removal of the urine drug screen (UDS) requirement.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing ambivalence toward medication and lack of insight into the risks of cannabis use.

The Board ordered a continued conditional discharge, reducing reporting frequency to monthly but maintaining the random UDS testing requirement to monitor abstinence.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, previously found NCR for assault causing bodily harm, suffers from schizophrenia and severe substance use disorders.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing substance use, elopements, and rule-breaking behaviour.

The Board ordered the maintenance of the detention order with modifications to allow the accused to attend a residential treatment program for up to six months.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault offences against three adopted children.

During a two-week judge-alone trial, midway through the cross-examination of the second complainant, defence counsel sought an adjournment to bring a section 278.92 application regarding text messages between the complainant and the defendant.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the probative value of the text messages was minimal and did not justify the significant disruption to the proceedings.

The court emphasized that section 278.92 applications should be brought pre-trial and that midtrial applications pose substantial risks to the administration of justice, particularly regarding the wellbeing of vulnerable complainants and the waste of scarce court resources.

The court considered whether a video-recorded statement by the complainant S.R., describing alleged sexual offences by A.G., was admissible under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued the statement was not taken within a reasonable time of the alleged offences, as required by the section.

The court found that the delay in disclosure was adequately explained by the complainant’s circumstances and trauma, and that her memory was not so impaired as to undermine reliability.

The court also held that section 715.1 is not limited to child witnesses at the time of testimony, but applies if the complainant was under 18 at the time of the alleged offence.

The application to admit the statement was granted.

This sentencing decision concerns Sgt. Alex Esliger of the Canadian Armed Forces, convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring during deployment in Iraq.

The court carefully considered the facts, including the nature of the assault involving forced digital penetration and attempted intercourse, the victim impact, and the offender’s background including mental and physical health issues.

The judge emphasized principles of denunciation and deterrence, referencing key Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, and rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions.

The sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition, reflecting the serious nature of the offence and its impact within a military context.

The defendant, Kyle Fisher, was charged with failing to provide a breath sample.

The trial proceeded in a blended fashion, addressing both the merits and alleged Charter breaches.

The court found the ASD demand proper and the refusal to comply established.

However, the court found a clear breach of the defendant's s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention due to an "overholding" period of 1 hour and 14 minutes, during which the police detained him solely to issue Highway Traffic Act tickets unrelated to the criminal investigation.

Despite the officer's good faith, this detention was deemed an unreasonable exercise of police authority.

The court determined that a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter was the appropriate remedy, as it was an exceptional case necessary to disassociate the justice system from the state's non-Charter compliant actions, given the lack of alternative remedies and the seriousness of the breach.