Maggie Brown

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and making child sexual abuse material arising from repeated penetrative assaults of a very young child over more than a year while acting as a trusted caregiver and family friend.

Applying the sentencing principles in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the recalibrated approach in Friesen, the court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, emphasizing the child’s age, repeated penetrative abuse, breach of trust, planning, and the enduring harm associated with image creation.

The court found only limited mitigation in the late guilty plea, lack of record, expressions of remorse, and collateral financial impact on the offender’s family.

A penitentiary sentence of 10 years was imposed, together with SOIRA, DNA, forfeiture, no-contact, and s. 161 orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for the 1983 killings of two women.

The murders remained unsolved for decades until genetic genealogy identified the offender.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years.

The court considered the extreme gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the brutal nature of the killings, alongside Gladue factors and the offender's guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 21 years.

Sentencing decision involving multiple child luring, child pornography making, distribution, and possession-related conduct carried out through false social media identities over more than two years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, finding substantial aggravating factors including the youth and vulnerability of the victims, multiple victims, prolonged grooming, planning, deception, and a significant volume of child pornography.

Although the offender received mitigation for a guilty plea, limited prior record, family support, and some rehabilitative potential, the court found his lack of insight and untreated deviant sexual interests maintained a significant risk to children.

Applying totality, the court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, less three days’ pretrial custody credit, and ordered ancillary relief.

Sentencing for child luring where the offender, while intoxicated, engaged in sexually explicit Kik communications with an undercover officer he believed was a 14-year-old girl, sent adult pornography and a photograph of his penis, and repeatedly pressed for an in-person sexual meeting.

The court applied the Nur framework to assess the fit sentence and the constitutional challenge to the six-month summary conviction mandatory minimum.

Emphasizing Friesen and Parliament's direction under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount in sentencing sexual offences against children.

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed eight months' imprisonment and sixteen months' probation.

Because the fit sentence exceeded the mandatory minimum, the s. 12 Charter issue was moot.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by consuming prohibited substances.

The first breach involved alcohol consumption in January 2019, and the second involved smoking a joint laced with crystal methamphetamine in October 2019.

A third alleged breach involving incidental contact with crystal methamphetamine was found not proven beyond reasonable doubt following a Gardiner hearing.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months less presentence custody, with enhanced credit for the harsh conditions of presentence detention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his two nieces.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence from both complainants, whose accounts of separate incidents were admitted at trial.

The trial judge found concerns regarding the circumstances of disclosure, including potential suggestive questioning by parents and the possibility of collusion or tainting between the complainants.

Despite finding both complainants credible and articulate, the judge determined that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The applicant, Andrew White, sought a declaration that electronic messages exchanged between himself and the complainant, A.S., and in a group chat with A.S. and her mother, were not "records" under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code.

This determination was crucial to avoid the requirement of an application under s. 278.93 for their use at trial.

The court, following the procedure established in R. v. W.M., reviewed the messages and applied a normative analysis to determine if the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Considering the innocuous content, the manner of communication, the nature of the relationship (even with a minor complainant), and policy implications, the court concluded that the messages did not contain personal information for which there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the application was granted, and the messages were deemed not to be "records" under the Criminal Code.