Mark Andrew Jacula

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The trial involved conflicting testimonies from the complainant and a Crown witness, and the accused.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies, evasiveness, and potential fabrication by the Crown's witnesses, particularly regarding their relationship and the timing of the complaint in relation to other police and child protection agency contacts.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The accused, Matthew Cecchetto, Dylan Paquette, and Carly Almon, were charged with various drug possession and trafficking offences.

The Crown stayed charges against Cecchetto and Almon.

The trial proceeded against Paquette, focusing on whether he possessed illicit substances found in a locked safe in a motel room.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paquette knew of the substances in the safe and had control over them, as the circumstantial evidence did not lead to the sole reasonable inference of his guilt.

Consequently, all charges against Dylan Paquette were dismissed.

The court also indicated it would have dismissed charges against Cecchetto and Almon had they not been stayed.

The accused, Dwayne Hopkins, was charged with drug possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop.

He sought to exclude evidence, arguing that his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were violated by a pretextual arrest for a Highway Traffic Act offence.

The court found that the police officer used the HTA arrest as a ruse to facilitate a criminal drug investigation and search, thereby violating the accused's s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

Additionally, the officer violated s. 10(b) by failing to inform the accused of his right to counsel when the investigation shifted to drugs.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the drugs found on the accused's person due to the significant privacy violation but admitted the drugs found in the vehicle, noting a lesser expectation of privacy and the likelihood of inevitable discovery.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the contents of a backpack found in the vehicle, leading to an acquittal on all charges.

The applicants were charged with possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of oxycontin.

Two of the applicants brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants of a search warrant as part of a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant for a motel room.

The applicants alleged that the police officers falsely stated in their arrest reports that they had been invited into the room.

The trial judge found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, evasive, and incredible, and dismissed the motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to multiple planned and sophisticated bank robberies.

The court considered the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, including accountability, rehabilitation, and the requirement that custody be a last resort.

Given the seriousness of the offences, the significant amounts of money stolen, and the traumatic impact on the victims, the court found that non-custodial sentences were not appropriate.

The first young person was sentenced to 15 months (open custody and community supervision) and the second to 12 months and 12 days (open custody and community supervision), both followed by 12 months of probation.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery of financial institutions committed over a planned and sophisticated spree in February and March 2019.

Q.W. pleaded guilty to four robberies; T.C. pleaded guilty to two robberies.

The robberies targeted Scotiabank and CIBC branches across multiple jurisdictions, involved stolen vehicles, and resulted in significant financial losses.

The court imposed custodial sentences with community supervision and probation, balancing the serious nature of the offences and the significant trauma to victims against the young persons' youth, lack of prior records, guilty pleas, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

A youthful first offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after throwing a glass of beer at a stranger during an altercation at a bar, causing a laceration requiring four stitches.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and a conviction, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The sentencing judge imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the case—including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant rehabilitative efforts undertaken after being charged, and the disproportionate impact a conviction would have on her employment prospects in the security field and future career aspirations—warranted a discharge despite the violent nature of the offence.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought four-year penitentiary sentences for both.

The sentencing judge found that Michael Hillier played the more significant role in the trafficking enterprise, which was motivated by a desire to support his partner's extended maternity leave.

Brittny Blain played a lesser role, primarily as a driver.

The judge imposed a two-year-less-a-day custodial sentence on Hillier followed by three years' probation, and a suspended sentence with three years' probation for Blain.

The decision emphasizes the importance of considering rehabilitation, restraint, and individualized proportionality in sentencing drug offenders, particularly those struggling with addiction.

The accused applied under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of search warrants at two apartment units.

The warrants were based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) relying heavily on confidential informants, resulting in significant redactions in the disclosure provided to the accused.

Following a Garofoli step six procedure, the court reviewed the unredacted ITO, ordered certain excisions, and determined that the judicial summary provided to the accused was sufficient.

The court found the confidential informants' information compelling and credible, compensating for weaknesses in corroboration.

The court also dismissed allegations of impermissible judge-shopping by the police.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

He absconded prior to sentencing.

The court sentenced him in absentia to a global term of 7 years imprisonment.

The court awarded 23 months of pre-sentence custody credit, including time spent in custody on subsequent charges, finding that custody was attributable to the initial charges.

A request for credit for strict bail conditions was denied due to a lack of evidence and the offender's absconding.

The defendant, a 25-year-old Aboriginal woman with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to theft of prescription medication and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (Hydromorph Contin, Oxycocet, and Adderall).

The offences occurred while she was employed as a pharmacy technician and involved taking narcotics from the pharmacy safe for personal use and to share with her then-boyfriend.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 to 3 years, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding exceptional circumstances based on the defendant's genuine rehabilitation efforts, completion of drug and mental health treatment programs, stable employment, family support, and Aboriginal heritage considerations.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

She operated her motor vehicle at high speed while intoxicated, executed a reckless manoeuvre to "show off," lost control, and collided with a tree and residential building.

Two passengers, including a 15-year-old, sustained serious injuries.

The court sentenced the defendant to 16 months concurrent incarceration, a 2-year driving prohibition, and probation.

The judgment emphasizes the primacy of general deterrence and denunciation in impaired driving cases, noting an upward trend in sentencing for such offences despite the defendant's sympathetic personal circumstances, good antecedents, and genuine remorse.

The defendants were charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant executed at their residence.

The court found that the search warrant could not have been reasonably granted based on the information before the issuing justice.

The affiant's investigation was characterized by lack of diligence, selective presentation of evidence, and unreliable conclusions.

The court determined that the warrant violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence pursuant to section 24(2) using the three-part test from R. v. Grant.

Both defendants were acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including possession of methamphetamine and hydromorphine, failure to comply with a recognizance, possession of stolen property, break and enter into a dwelling house, and various firearm offences.

The offences occurred over a three-week period in December 2013, culminating in a two-day crime spree during which the defendant stole from vehicles and committed a residential break and enter while in possession of an unloaded handgun with readily accessible ammunition.

The defendant was subject to three court orders at the time of the offences and exposed his nine-year-old son to the criminal activity.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years less six months presentence custody credit, with specific consecutive and concurrent terms for each offence.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm following an incident during a non-contact recreational hockey game.

The defendant struck the complainant with her elbow after play had concluded, causing the complainant to fall and break her leg in two places.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting she believed she was about to be attacked.

The court rejected the self-defence claim and the implied consent defence, finding the blow was unprovoked, vicious, and delivered well after the whistle.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The applicants, two young persons charged with multiple counts of robbery, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay between arrest and the scheduled seven-day trial was approximately 13 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, finding that while the delay was longer than ideal for a youth court matter, it was largely attributable to neutral inherent time requirements, including bail proceedings and retaining counsel.

The institutional delay of just over nine months was deemed reasonable given the complexity of the case, and the motion was dismissed.