Madeline Lisus

The defendant, Jermaine Haughton, was charged with break and enter, assault with a weapon, failing to comply with a release order, and theft under, following an incident where a masked assailant entered Joseph Prempeh's apartment and assaulted him.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance, to identify Haughton as the assailant.

Haughton admitted to the theft and the breach of the release order but denied being the assailant, claiming it was his friend Oshane.

The court found Haughton's testimony incredible due to inconsistencies and rejected his narrative.

Based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including matching clothing, physical attributes, timing, and post-offence conduct, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Haughton was the assailant and found him guilty on all charges.

K.W. was found guilty of two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's sister, B.B., over a four-year period starting when B.B. was eleven.

The Crown requested an 8.5-year global custodial term, while the Defence sought 4 years.

The court found the Crown's proposed term disproportionate and the Defence's term insufficient.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, predatory behavior, and victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors like employment, family support, and background hardships, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 5 years, with all counts served concurrently.

Ancillary orders were also issued with a variation for K.W.'s own children.

D.S. was sentenced for sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.M., committed between 2013 and 2014 when she was 19.

The court considered prior uncharged sexual assaults in Alberta (from age 6 to 15) as aggravating factors, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The sentencing emphasized the extreme frequency and repetition of the assaults, the profound breach of trust by the stepfather, and the catastrophic psychological and emotional impact on the victim, including Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, eating disorders, and agoraphobia.

Despite the defence's recommendation of 5-7 years, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years' incarceration, citing the extraordinary gravity of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the offender's high moral culpability, emphasizing denunciation.

Ancillary orders for DNA databank, SOIRA, and non-communication were also made.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

A defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant, his stepdaughter, occurring in Brampton between 2013 and 2014.

The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborated by her mother's evidence of the defendant's prior admission of sexual assault against the complainant in another jurisdiction (uncharged offences), admitted as similar fact evidence.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and her mother, citing the complainant's history of lying, recantations, mental health issues, and amicable electronic communications with the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its flaws, accepting explanations for inconsistencies and her complex relationship with the defendant.

The court found the mother's testimony regarding the defendant's admission after a suicide attempt to be convincing and confirmed by the mother's later physical confrontation with the defendant.

The similar fact evidence from the other jurisdiction was deemed highly probative.

The court rejected the defendant's denials and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender, M.S., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault against his stepdaughter, SLF.

This was a re-sentencing after a successful appeal of an earlier conviction.

The court addressed two main issues: whether the Crown proved both alleged acts of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt (the "apartment incident" and the "house incident"), and whether the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, justified a departure from the four-year sentence imposed at the first trial.

The court found both incidents proven, discrediting a defence witness's testimony.

It also determined that Friesen rendered the original sentence unfit, as it emphasized higher sentences for sexual offences against children, particularly adolescents, and the primacy of denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

He admitted to a non-consensual application of force by putting his hand on her mouth to calm her down, which he conceded might have caused bleeding.

The complainant testified that the defendant slapped her, held her on the bed, sat on her, beat her face and head, and grabbed her neck, causing difficulty breathing and possible loss of consciousness.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant, considering inconsistencies and admissions.

The court rejected the defendant's explanation for scratches found on his body, concluding that these injuries were inflicted by the complainant in self-defense while she was being choked.

The defendant was found guilty of assault.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of assault causing bodily harm against the defendant, Shane Springer, arising from an incident on September 20, 2021, involving the complainant, Ricardo Pilgrim.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The complainant's testimony, detailing significant head injuries caused by the defendant, was accepted as truthful and accurate.

The defendant's testimony, which offered an alternative explanation for the injuries and denied culpability, was rejected as untruthful and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of plausibility.

The court found no reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving (excess blood alcohol).

On appeal, the sole issue was whether her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice was violated.

The appellant had twice asked to call her husband after being advised of her rights, but the arresting officer denied the request, stating she could only speak to a lawyer.

The trial judge found that the appellant did not communicate that she wanted to call her husband to obtain a lawyer's name, and that it was not obvious to the police.

The Superior Court, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, upheld the trial judge's factual finding as reasonable and affirmed that a detainee has an obligation to explicitly state the reason for wanting to contact a third party to facilitate access to counsel.

The court found no Charter breach and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the 9-month sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual assault against a child, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and failed to properly apply sentencing principles from *R. v. Friesen*.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, found the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing mitigating factors and underestimating the gravity and harm of the offence, and imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The Court increased the sentence to 24 months but, based on fresh evidence that the respondent had completed his original sentence and was on parole, stayed the execution of the additional incarceration.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for criminal harassment and failure to comply, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (the "Board") decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board misapplied the "significant threat" test and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight into his mental illness and medication needs, and his stated desire to discontinue medication.

The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's determinations and found its decision reasonable.