Maria Stephanie Stellato

The accused was tried on a historical sexual assault allegation arising from an alleged first sexual encounter between spouses before their eventual marriage and long family life together.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved lack of subjective consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's evidence that the encounter was planned and consensual, found that version more plausible in light of the household layout and access evidence, and treated the complainant's delayed allegation and possible motive to fabricate as relevant to credibility.

The accused was acquitted.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for offences including criminal harassment and uttering threats.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

However, noting his compliance with treatment, abstinence from substances, and strong family support, the Board concluded that his risk could be safely managed in the community.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge on the terms jointly recommended by the parties.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and related weapons offences after shooting a victim during a drug robbery.

The Crown sought a 13-year global sentence, while the defence argued for significant mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and the offender's lived experience with anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years for totality, and further mitigated to 11 years to account for Duncan and Morris factors.

After applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 51 months in a federal penitentiary.

The defendant, Brett Hicks, was charged with alcohol-impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The breath demand was deemed unlawful because the officer failed to observe the required 15-minute waiting period for mouth alcohol dissipation, rendering the ASD result unreliable.

The court also found a breach of the defendant's s.10(b) Charter right to counsel, as police made only token efforts to contact his counsel of choice and failed to inform him of his right to wait, which rendered his refusal provisional.

Furthermore, the police's degrading treatment of the defendant in the holding cell, specifically denying him toilet paper and observing him use his mask, constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under s.8 of the Charter.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on both criminal charges, and related provincial offences were proven but stayed due to the s.8 Charter infringement.

David Hercules was found guilty of four counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentencing was delayed due to administrative errors and legal uncertainty regarding conditional sentences, which was resolved by the enactment of Bill C-5.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court denied a discharge, emphasizing the public interest in denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes.

Balancing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the harm caused with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, first-time offender status, and the legislative intent of Bill C-5 to address systemic over-incarceration, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a weapon prohibition.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.

The defendant was convicted of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code for sexually abusing his young stepdaughter over a three-year period beginning when she was 10 years old.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

The court considered whether this joint recommendation constituted a "joint submission" entitled to deference under R. v. Anthony-Cook, and whether a delayed parole eligibility order under section 743.6 should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Friesen emphasizing deterrence and denunciation in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found the joint recommendation was not a true joint submission because the defendant maintained a not guilty plea and attempted to advance a fraudulent mental health defence.

The court imposed 4 years and 8 months imprisonment (5 years less 4 months pre-sentence custody credit) with delayed parole eligibility until half the sentence was served, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched his daughter during an overnight visit.

He argued the trial judge conflated credibility and reliability, failed to grapple with inconsistencies, misapprehended material evidence, and improperly relied on medical evidence as corroboration.

The appeal court held the trial judge gave adequate reasons, properly distinguished credibility from reliability, and was not required to address every alleged inconsistency.

Any misstatements were immaterial details, and the medical evidence was used only to anchor timing and support the general reliability of the complainant's account.

The appeal was dismissed.

A commercial truck driver appealed his convictions for failing to maintain and carry a daily log, failing to surrender the log to police upon demand, and careless driving.

The incident involved a fatal rear-end collision on Hurontario Street in Brampton that killed two occupants of a taxi.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's application of the burden of proof regarding the log exception and the verdict on careless driving as unreasonable.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reviewable error and that the trial judge's conclusions were the only reasonable conclusions available on the evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada sought forfeiture of a residential property at 15 Tamora Court in Toronto pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the conviction of the respondents' adult son for drug trafficking offences.

The respondents, who were charged but had their charges withdrawn, claimed they were innocent of any complicity or collusion in the offences and that forfeiture would be disproportionate.

The court found the respondents appeared innocent under section 19(3) of the CDSA and ordered the property returned to them.

Alternatively, the court found forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) and revoked the restraint order.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder arising from a fatal beating that left the victim incapacitated on railway tracks where he was subsequently struck by a train.

They argued the evidence supported, at most, manslaughter or second degree murder.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the test for committal and that there was some evidence capable of supporting each essential element of first degree murder.

Evidence existed from which a jury could infer intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause death and recklessness, as well as planning and deliberation in leaving the victim incapacitated on the tracks.

The evidence could also support constructive first degree murder based on unlawful confinement.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats following a domestic altercation with his spouse.

Both parties sustained injuries, including a broken finger for the spouse and extensive scratching on the accused.

The court found the spouse's evidence regarding the threat was contradicted by the 911 recording and that she minimized her physical aggression towards the accused.

Applying the W.D. framework and the law of self-defence, the court concluded the Crown failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence when he pushed the spouse and twisted her hand to stop her from scratching him.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.