L. Spencer

The accused pleaded guilty to personation with intent and fraud over $5,000.

The fraud involved the accused impersonating his brother to facilitate a fraudulent mortgage scheme orchestrated by a mortgage broker.

The accused received a $10,000 benefit and made restitution.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 9-12 months.

The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with onerous terms followed by 2 years of probation, finding that a conditional sentence could adequately address denunciation and deterrence given the accused's relatively minor role, genuine remorse, early guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, and significant health issues.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying or noxious substance to facilitate sexual assault, and being parties to each other’s alleged sexual assault.

The complainant reported memory loss and later flashbacks alleging anal sexual assaults after a night of drinking and attending the accused’s condominium.

The court found significant reliability issues with the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistent recollections, delayed “flashback” memories, and refusal to acknowledge possible memory error.

Forensic and circumstantial evidence did not establish the administration of a drug or non-consensual sexual activity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove lack of consent or the involvement of both accused in the alleged assaults.

The applicants, charged with sexual assault and administering a stupefying drug, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 39-month delay between the charges and the trial date.

The court analyzed the delay using the Morin framework, attributing portions to inherent time requirements, defence actions, Crown actions, and institutional delay.

Although the court found actual and inferred prejudice, the unreasonable delay was calculated to be only one month beyond the Morin guidelines.

The court concluded that this short period of unreasonable delay was outweighed by the societal interest in having the serious charges determined on their merits, and dismissed the application.