Lynette Helen Fritzley

The court sentenced Jeremy Wicker for sexual assault against his former spouse, Josephine Wicker, following a conviction after trial.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence and three years' probation, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed relevant case law, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a custodial sentence with probation, declining to make a SOIRA order.

The decision discusses the impact of domestic context, lack of remorse, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown brought an application under section 111 of the Criminal Code seeking to prohibit the respondent from possessing firearms and related items.

The respondent, a correctional officer diagnosed with PTSD, had voluntarily given his firearms to his brother-in-law in summer 2016 due to concerns about his mental health and violent thoughts.

When he requested their return in February 2017, coinciding with receipt of family law documents regarding custody, his wife and brother-in-law contacted police.

The court found that despite the respondent's safe storage practices and lack of actual violent conduct, legitimate concerns existed regarding his responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, given his recent history of suicidal and homicidal ideation, ongoing PTSD, and stressful life circumstances.

A three-year prohibition order was imposed.

The accused, W.R., was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching for a sexual purpose of a person under sixteen years of age (E.D.), his granddaughter's friend, during a sleepover.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and consistent, despite minor inconsistencies on peripheral details, and rejected the inconsistent and evasive testimonies of the accused and his granddaughter.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, concluding that the Crown proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown sought to establish a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code against the defendant following a separation dispute.

The complainant alleged threats and concerning behaviour during property division proceedings.

The defence brought a motion for non-suit or directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case, arguing insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The court found that while the complainant harboured fear at the time the information was sworn, the evidence did not establish reasonable grounds for such fear at the time of hearing, approximately ten months later.

The court granted the defence motion, finding that the passage of time, absence of contact between parties, and lack of acrimony in subsequent interactions undermined the reasonableness of the fear.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over .08 following a motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a roadside statement admitting he was the driver on the basis that the statement was compelled under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, thereby violating his right against self-incrimination under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the accused had a statutory duty to report the accident, his evidence did not establish that he believed he was legally compelled to make the statement.

Rather, the accused was motivated by moral responsibility and a sense of honour.

The statement was admitted into evidence, and the accused was found guilty of driving over .08.

The defendant, a horse farm operator, was charged with four counts under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: causing animals to be in distress, failing to comply with prescribed standards of care, failing to comply with an OSPCA order, and failing to provide care necessary for the general welfare of horses.

The defendant operated a facility with approximately 43 horses, many of which were rescue animals over 20 years old.

Following a loss of volunteer assistance and poor hay quality in 2012, conditions deteriorated significantly.

OSPCA inspections in February and March 2013 revealed inadequate feed, water, bedding, and grooming.

The court found the defendant guilty on all four counts, determining that while she possessed knowledge of proper horse care, she lacked sufficient financial resources and assistance to maintain adequate care for the large herd and failed to reduce the herd size when circumstances changed.

The Crown charged two defendants with possession of prohibited weapons, controlled substances, and firearms offences.

Following a Charter voir dire and trial, the co-accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant Ball pleaded guilty to possession of brass knuckles and controlled substances but maintained not guilty pleas to firearms charges involving a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum handgun.

The central issue was whether the handgun was a functioning firearm as defined in the Criminal Code or a disabled/inoperable item.

The Crown relied on photographs, text messages, and expert evidence.

The defendant testified the handgun had been rendered inoperable and he was attempting to defraud acquaintances by misrepresenting it as a real firearm.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a functioning firearm and dismissed the firearms charges.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and cannabis marijuana, possession of a prohibited weapon, and firearm-related offences arising from items seized during the execution of search warrants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants under section 8 of the Charter and the accused Olsson also challenged her arrest under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants, establishing both spatial and temporal nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.

The court also found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Olsson.

Both Charter applications were dismissed.