Mareike Noona Godbout Newhouse

Sentencing decision for offences of possessing child pornography, accessing child pornography, and making child pornography available arising from online chats and a search revealing thousands of child pornography images and videos.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also weighing the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, cooperation, and psychiatric evidence indicating a low risk of contact offending but risk of future internet-based recidivism.

Comparable authorities did not support the defence request for a 12-month custodial sentence.

A sentence of 18 months' jail and 3 years' probation was imposed, together with DNA, SOIRA, prohibition, non-communication, weapons, and forfeiture orders, while a broader prohibition on attending parks and pools was refused.

The accused was charged with failing to stop, impaired operation, and operating a vehicle with excess alcohol after his truck collided with a parked car.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to stop.

However, the court dismissed the impaired operation charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The court also found a breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to police failing to ensure he understood his rights despite obvious language difficulties.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2), resulting in the dismissal of the excess alcohol charge.

The accused was charged with fail to stop, impaired operation, and excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision in a parking lot on September 16, 2011.

The Crown proved the fail to stop charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on eyewitness evidence and vehicle identification.

However, the impaired operation charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment, with the court finding the observations of impairment were inconsistent and could be explained by fatigue rather than alcohol consumption.

The excess alcohol charge was also dismissed as a consequence of excluding the breath sample evidence due to a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found that police failed to ensure the accused, who had significant language limitations, understood his right to counsel and had a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of Raheem Mitchell and Nishan Singh, as well as charges related to pointing, discharging, and using a firearm without lawful excuse, and possessing a handgun without a licence.

A shooting incident occurred on August 25, 2013, at Swansea Mews in Toronto.

The Crown sought committal for trial on all charges.

The defence challenged both the identity of the shooter and whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including video footage, clothing matching, gunshot residue, and witness testimony, established that the accused was the shooter.

The court also found sufficient evidence of intent to kill based on the number of shots fired, the proximity of the victims, the trajectory of the bullets, and the accused's deliberate actions.

The Crown's request for additional counts of attempted murder against other members of the group was rejected as there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill them.

The accused brought a motion on the second day of trial to dismiss charges of impaired driving and driving with over 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

The accused argued that the Crown was barred by statute from proceeding without the consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General.

The accused was charged in February 2011, released on a Promise to Appear with a March 2011 court date, but no Information was before the court at that appearance.

The accused heard nothing until receiving a Summons in February 2012, over one year later.

The court found that jurisdiction was lost when no Information was before the court at the first appearance, and that the Crown failed to regain jurisdiction within the three-month statutory period.

Accordingly, the charges were deemed dismissed for want of prosecution, and the Crown could not proceed without the required consent, which was never obtained.

The motion was granted and the charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested on breathalyzer readings of 118 mg and 110 mg.

The accused raised a bolus drinking defence, arguing that she had consumed most of the alcohol immediately before being stopped and that it had not been fully absorbed into her bloodstream at the time of driving.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence regarding the timing and volume of her alcohol consumption, finding her testimony not credible.

The trial judge also found problems with the expert evidence that was based on the accused's account.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who alleged that the taxi driver touched her genitals without consent during a cab ride on December 1, 2012.

The complainant was intoxicated and became ill during the ride.

The defendant denied the allegations and testified that he did not touch the complainant at any time.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was credible, her state of intoxication created a reliability gap in her testimony.

The security camera footage did not corroborate the allegations of continuous touching.

The defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was convicted of production of cannabis, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, and related drug and weapons offences following a search warrant execution at a residential property where a sophisticated hydroponic marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The sentencing judgment addresses three key legal issues: whether the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm remains in effect following the Smickle decision declaring it unconstitutional; whether the combination of drug production and firearms constitutes an aggravating factor; and whether sentences should be imposed concurrently or consecutively.

The court imposed a global sentence of 43 months imprisonment, treating the offences as concurrent given their interconnected nature within a single criminal enterprise.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle following a three-vehicle collision.

The impairment element was conceded; the sole issue was whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.

The defendant had unknowingly received a prescription for Lorazepam at double his usual dose due to a pharmacy error.

The court found that while the defendant was objectively impaired, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he voluntarily consumed the drug with knowledge that it might impair his ability to drive, given the accidental doubling of his prescription and his lack of prior experience with side effects at higher doses.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel on the basis that counsel had a realistic prospect of becoming a witness at the accused's upcoming murder trial.

Counsel had interviewed a potential alternate suspect alone and was personally involved in discovering a piece of physical evidence (a crutch) allegedly linked to the murder.

The court granted the application, finding a realistic risk that counsel would need to testify to rehabilitate the witness or explain the discovery of the evidence, which would compromise his role as an advocate.

Consequently, the court granted the defence's application to adjourn the trial.

The court denied the accused's application for bail, finding detention necessary on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds given his extensive criminal record and history of failing to appear.

The applicant was charged with five drug-related offences, six firearm-related offences, one charge of proceeds obtained by crime, and four charges of possession of stolen property arising from a marijuana production operation.

The applicant brought a Charter section 8 application challenging the search warrant executed at his residence on September 19, 2011.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence seized during the search.

The court conducted a voir dire to examine the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant.

After careful review and redaction of irrelevant, misleading, and prejudicial information from the ITO, the court found that sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed to justify the issuance of the warrant based on the totality of circumstances, including distinctive electricity consumption patterns and police observations.

The application was dismissed.

During a criminal trial for robbery, the court considered whether to conduct a voir dire into the competence of two proposed Amharic interpreters who lacked accreditation under the Ministry of the Attorney General’s new interpreter testing regime.

Both interpreters had failed the Ministry’s English‑only interpreter test and had previously been accredited under an earlier system later found invalid.

The court held that the failed test results demonstrated that the interpreters had not reached the required threshold of competence.

Given the absence of accreditation and the judge’s inability to independently assess Amharic interpretation, the court concluded that a voir dire would serve no useful purpose.

The interpreters were therefore deemed incompetent to act in the trial.