Mark Friedman

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement arising from a sexual encounter on March 1, 2024.

The complainant testified that she repeatedly communicated her lack of consent and that the defendant forced her to have intercourse despite her protests.

The defendant testified that the complainant communicated consent verbally and through conduct.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, noting that the defendant's text messages the following day constituted an adoptive admission that he engaged in sexual activity with her despite her having said no multiple times.

The court rejected the defendant's explanations for his text messages and found him guilty of sexual assault.

The forcible confinement charge was dismissed as the court was unable to rely on the complainant's description of the restraint incident.

This decision concerns the sentencing of an Indigenous offender, Evan Buswa, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including theft, break and enter, and breaches of court orders, primarily involving the theft of donation and tip boxes.

The court considered significant mitigating factors such as the offender's Indigenous heritage, chronic homelessness, mental health challenges (schizophrenia), and substance addiction, applying Gladue principles.

Despite the Crown seeking a one-year jail sentence, the court emphasized the disproportionate impact of incarceration on vulnerable Indigenous individuals and the systemic factors contributing to their over-representation in the criminal justice system.

The judge ultimately imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, highlighting that jails are not a solution for issues rooted in poverty, mental health, and addiction.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a young woman after breaking into her university residence.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record of over 70 convictions, primarily for property offences including numerous break and enters.

The court found the offence to be a home invasion sexual assault, an aggravating factor, while noting the offender's recent efforts at rehabilitation as mitigating.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence range was 9 to 10 years, but credited the offender with 3 years already served for the related break and enter conviction, resulting in a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

The two accused brothers were convicted of aggravated assault after brutally attacking a defenceless victim by kicking him in the head multiple times.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought conditional sentences.

The court considered the extreme violence of the attack, the mitigating factors including the offenders' lack of significant criminal records, their employment, and remorse, as well as the collateral immigration consequences for one offender and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prison conditions.

The court sentenced both offenders to 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres.

Police responded to a report of an impaired driver asleep in a running vehicle in an apartment parking lot.

The accused was detained and questioned for approximately four to five minutes before being advised of his right to counsel.

The court found a violation of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but determined that the breath readings should not be excluded under section 24(2).

However, the court acquitted the accused on the impaired count due to credibility findings regarding the officer's evidence, while convicting on the over 80 count based on the breath test results.