Lynn Ross

The offender, an Indigenous man with a lengthy criminal record, was convicted of possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and weapons offences.

The court considered two Gladue reports detailing his history of trauma and abuse, but emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of trafficking fentanyl and his recent prior convictions for similar offences.

A global sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit.

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 was charged with second-degree murder, pointing a firearm, and unauthorized possession of firearms after fatally shooting a man who had aggressively approached his home following a series of altercations.

The victim, who was highly intoxicated and angry, had repeatedly rammed the accused's vehicle with his truck and approached the accused's door brandishing a stick.

The accused, who was inside his home, fired a single shot through the door, killing the victim.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence, resulting in an acquittal on the murder and pointing a firearm charges.

The accused was found guilty of unauthorized possession of firearms.

In a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown applied to admit statements made by the accused to police, while the accused sought to exclude them under the Charter.

The accused argued his statements were involuntary due to police inducements, his right to counsel was breached because his consulted lawyer had an unknown conflict of interest, and he was arbitrarily detained at the police station after a warrant of remand was signed.

The court found the statements were voluntary, the right to counsel was not breached as the state played no role in the conflict, and although the continued detention at the police station was arbitrary, the breach was not serious enough to warrant exclusion under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The statements were ruled admissible.

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.

Sentencing decision arising from guilty pleas to making child pornography, possessing child pornography, and voyeurism committed over many years through a hidden bathroom camera in the family home.

The offences involved multiple victims, including a child in the offender's care, extensive digital image and video files, significant breach of trust, and profound victim impact.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code, while also considering rehabilitation, the offender's lack of prior record, and expert evidence assessing risk as low if managed.

A global sentence of five years and three months' imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and multiple ancillary orders.

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.