Lynn Ross

Brandon Sero and Marie Miller were charged with drug trafficking offences following a search warrant executed on February 8, 2024.

Sero brought a Charter application under section 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the search, arguing the warrant was invalid due to breaches of section 8 rights.

The applicant challenged the validity of the warrant, claiming the Information to Obtain failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds and that confidential source information was insufficiently credible, compelling, and corroborated.

The court found the warrant was valid despite material omissions from the ITO regarding the background and credentials of confidential sources.

The court applied the Garofoli process to manage disclosure while protecting informer privilege and ultimately dismissed the Charter application, finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

This decision concerns the sentencing of J.K., who was found guilty of assaulting her son with a belt, unlawfully confining him in a basement, and assaulting him by slapping and squeezing his chin.

The Crown sought 18-24 months incarceration, while the defence requested a 20-month conditional sentence.

The court considered various sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, rehabilitation, and reparations.

Aggravating factors included the victim being a child under 18, abuse of trust, significant psychological impact, and repeated offences.

Mitigating factors included no prior violent convictions, family support, employment history, and willingness to engage in parenting and mental health programs.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the first 16 months under house arrest, followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The accused, a mother, was charged with assault with a weapon (belt) against two children, unlawful confinement of one child, and simple assault.

The trial involved conflicting evidence from the children, the accused, a friend of the accused who witnessed incidents, and various other witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting one child with a belt, confining that child unlawfully in the basement, and assaulting that child by striking the head and squeezing the chin.

The court acquitted on the charge of assaulting the second child with a belt due to insufficient evidence.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of assessing child witness credibility without applying adult standards and the reliability of videotaped statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking leave to adduce evidence of prior and subsequent sexual activity with the complainant in a sexual assault prosecution.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to demonstrate the nature of the parties’ ongoing intimate relationship and a pattern of consensual sexual activity relevant to consent or mistaken belief in consent.

The Crown opposed the application on the basis that such evidence risked invoking the prohibited “twin myths.” The court held the proposed evidence related to specific instances of sexual activity, had significant probative value, and did not rely on impermissible reasoning.

Leave was granted permitting cross‑examination and testimony regarding aspects of the sexual relationship, including certain subsequent encounters and related communications.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 13-year-old complainant following a party in Belleville, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The defence admitted the sexual assault occurred but contested the identity of the perpetrator.

The trial focused on identification evidence, including the complainant's testimony, a properly conducted photo line-up, DNA evidence from a t-shirt found at the scene, and corroborating witness testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and the identification evidence, considered as a whole, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.