Lorna Spencer

The offender, a 56-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his then-girlfriend's 13-year-old daughter in 2005.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 3 to 4 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but noted the offence was a single, transitory incident of touching by a person in a quasi-position of trust.

Applying the law as it existed at the time of the offence, the court found a conditional sentence was available and appropriate.

The offender was sentenced to a 9-month conditional sentence to be served under house arrest, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a DNA order.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following a conviction for assault with a weapon.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of the offender’s criminal history, including 89 prior convictions and numerous violent offences demonstrating a persistent pattern of aggressive and repetitive violent behaviour.

Psychological assessments placed the offender in high‑risk categories for violent recidivism but indicated potential manageability through intensive supervision and treatment in the community.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under ss. 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code were met.

However, satisfied that long‑term supervision could adequately protect the public, the court imposed a two‑year sentence (time served) together with a ten‑year long‑term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of the Information to the anticipated trial date was approximately three years, nine months, and eighteen days.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court analyzed the length of delay, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

Much of the delay was attributed to neutral intake periods, inherent time requirements of the case, or institutional delay within acceptable limits.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and concluded that the societal interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the delay.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault following allegations that the complainant was sexually assaulted by multiple men in an apartment over approximately thirty-one hours.

The trial judge found the complainant’s evidence unreliable regarding how she arrived at the apartment but accepted core aspects of her testimony concerning non-consensual sexual activity, supported by DNA evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

The court concluded that one accused engaged in multiple acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity with the complainant and rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The second accused was found to have touched the complainant’s breast in a sexual manner without consent based on DNA evidence and credibility findings.

However, the Crown failed to prove that the accused were parties to each other’s assaults for the purpose of the gang sexual assault charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and several firearm offences after shooting a man in the neck following a birthday party and pointing the gun at the victim's girlfriend.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the offender sought 6 to 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for unprovoked gun violence in a public place.

The court granted enhanced pre-trial custody credit of 1.5 to 1 due to harsh jail conditions and the offender's early intention to plead guilty, resulting in a net sentence of 7 years.

The accused applied under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude a police statement made during an interview following arrest for sexual assault-related offences.

Although the accused had been advised of his right to counsel at the time of arrest, he had not yet spoken with his retained lawyer when the police conducted a videotaped interview the following day.

During the interview the accused repeatedly indicated he wished his lawyer to explain matters to him and stated he had not spoken with counsel.

The court held that although the continued custody did not amount to a second detention requiring a renewed caution, the accused had not been given a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before questioning.

The resulting statement was excluded under s. 24(2) and could not be used by the Crown, including for cross‑examination.

The accused was charged with robbery with a firearm, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon following an altercation in a crack house.

The Crown's key witnesses, including the victim, had significant credibility and reliability issues due to drug addiction and inconsistent testimony.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the robbery and firearm charges, resulting in acquittals on those counts.

However, the court convicted the accused of assault with a weapon, as the victim's testimony regarding being struck with a lamp stand was corroborated by photographic evidence of his injuries.