Mark David Eshuis

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence for James Dobbs, who pled guilty to manslaughter, indignity to a body, and aggravated assault.

The sentence included 16 years for manslaughter, 3 years consecutive for indignity to a body, and 6 years consecutive for aggravated assault, for a total of 25 years less pre-sentence custody.

The court discussed the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, and found the joint submission appropriate given the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Dobbs' criminal history and mental health issues.

The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The first charge, relating to events in 2014, was dismissed by the Crown due to insufficient evidence of non-consent.

The court proceeded with the second charge, concerning an incident on January 1, 2021.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual or that he had an honest but mistaken belief in consent, attributing the complainant's actions to "playing hard to get" and his own intoxication.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony, finding that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant's belief in consent was not honestly held or based on reasonable steps.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexually assaulting the complainant in January 2021, emphasizing that silence, passivity, or ambiguous conduct do not constitute consent.

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was found guilty after trial of robbery, aggravated assault, and extortion.

The Crown sought a real jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the availability of a conditional sentence, particularly in light of R. v. Sharma and the principle of horizontal stare decisis as clarified in R. v. Sullivan.

Following the precedent set in R. v. Forrestall, the judge concluded that a conditional sentence was an available option.

Considering the seriousness of the offences, their impact on the victim, and the offender's background and moral responsibility, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring and community service.

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was charged with aggravated assault, extortion, and robbery stemming from a violent incident with the victim, Brian Upham, over a debt.

The trial addressed issues of witness identification, the elements of the offences, and a defence application for a stay of proceedings due to alleged lost evidence (CCTV footage and an uninvestigated object).

The court found the victim's identification reliable, the elements of all charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and dismissed the stay application, concluding that the lost evidence was either irrelevant or not lost due to unacceptable negligence causing irremediable prejudice.

The accused, charged with two counts of second-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release (bail).

The Crown presented exceptionally strong evidence, including DNA, cell phone records placing the accused near the crime scene and a pawnshop where victims' items were sold, and testimony from five witnesses alleging confessions or suspicious inquiries.

The proposed sureties, the accused's mother and a friend, were deemed weak due to lack of positive influence, lack of knowledge about the accused's history, and questionable commitment to surety duties.

The court found that electronic monitoring could not compensate for the weak sureties and dismissed the application on both secondary and tertiary grounds, confirming the accused's continued detention pending trial.

The Crown applied for an order under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access sealed youth records from 2002 relating to the respondent's prior charges of sexual assault and sexual interference when he was 16 or 17 years old.

The Crown sought access to determine whether a similar fact evidence application could be brought in connection with current sexual assault charges.

The respondent opposed the application, asserting his right to privacy under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and his entitlement to a fresh start as an adult.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the Crown had a valid and substantial interest in the records and that access was necessary in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court balanced the respondent's privacy rights against the public interest in having serious prior behaviour placed before the court.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer, TD Canada Trust, of $237,156.44 over a 42-month period while employed as a loans officer.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment; the defence sought 6 months.

The court imposed 6 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation with conditions including 150 hours of community service.

A restitution order was made for the full amount defrauded.

No DNA order was imposed.

The accused brought an application to stay criminal charges (assault with a weapon, assault, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment) pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was approximately 19 months from charge to trial date.

The court found that while the accused and defence counsel had requested most adjournments to pursue settlement discussions, the delay from the charge date to when counsel was ready to set a trial date (June 11, 2012) was treated as neutral time.

The post-trial-readiness delay of approximately 8.5 months fell within the Supreme Court guideline of 8-10 months for provincial courts.

The application was dismissed.