G. Mark Hornblower

This sentencing decision by Justice M. Hornblower in the Ontario Court of Justice addresses the appropriate sentence for J.G., convicted of multiple sexual assaults against his half-sister C.W. spanning from when he was 13 to 18 years old.

The offences involved sexual touching and oral sex but excluded penetrative acts.

The court considered the victim impact statements, the offender's diagnosed mental health conditions including autism spectrum disorder and other social deficits, and the high risk of sexual reoffending.

The Crown sought a four-year incarceration, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the offender's unique circumstances.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's principles in R. v. Friesen and relevant Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, the court imposed a two-year less one day conditional sentence followed by three years probation, emphasizing rehabilitation potential in the community setting and the offender's vulnerability in custody.

The defendant, a 47-year-old man with a previously clean record, was sentenced for trafficking in fentanyl patches.

Following a workplace electrocution eight years prior, the defendant was lawfully prescribed fentanyl for pain management.

He became addicted to the drug, abused his prescription by chewing used patches, and gave patches to his brother-in-law who was experiencing severe back pain.

To cover his tracks, he fabricated fake used patches.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three to four years.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and various conditions including substance abuse counselling and a weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cannabis contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police observed him operating a motor vehicle at high speed and determined his ability was impaired by marijuana consumption.

The accused had a valid medical prescription for the marijuana.

The accused entered a guilty plea, but the court struck the plea after determining that the facts did not disclose an offence of unlawful possession.

The court held that lawful possession of a prescribed substance does not become unlawful merely because the accused subsequently used it while operating a motor vehicle, distinguishing the case from Elias v. The Queen on the basis that the accused was always lawfully entitled to possess the prescribed marijuana.

The accused, a member of the Walpole Island First Nation and former Canadian Armed Forces member, was convicted of gun trafficking in 2015 and received a 10-year firearms prohibition.

He subsequently pled guilty to transporting a firearm in a careless manner while hunting.

He applied for a Section 113 exemption to permit hunting for sustenance purposes.

The court granted the exemption, finding that sustenance hunting for Indigenous persons must be interpreted broadly to recognize cultural and traditional significance, and that the accused had demonstrated a genuine need to hunt as part of his cultural identity and role as a family provider.

The court imposed conditions on the exemption and sentenced the accused to a suspended sentence with probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to pointing a firearm at his common-law spouse's face during a domestic dispute, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of Oxycodone, and breach of probation.

The offence occurred in the presence of a two-year-old child and resulted in a four-hour police standoff.

The court imposed an exemplary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, with a global sentence of four years (three years for pointing the firearm, one year consecutive for possession while prohibited, and two years consecutive for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm), less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

A lifetime firearms prohibition was imposed.

The respondent sought access to a sealed youth criminal justice record under Section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The respondent claimed the record related to a conviction for making a false report of sexual assault and sought to use it to impeach the credibility of the complainant in a Section 810 peace bond application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the respondent had a valid and substantial interest in the record, disclosure was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The probative value of a nearly ten-year-old youth conviction was minimal, particularly given the principle of diminished responsibility inherent in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the complainant's maturation into adulthood.

The privacy rights of the young person under the legislative scheme outweighed the probative value of the record.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed on February 1st, wherein she entered a bank wearing a disguise, presented a note demanding money, threatened to shoot, and obtained cash before being arrested hours later.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of two and a half years imprisonment less time served (120 days), finding the submission within the appropriate range of two to three years.

The court considered mitigating factors including early guilty plea, cooperation with police, and recognition of victim impact, balanced against aggravating factors including the threat of violence and prior record for violence.

A concurrent 30-day sentence was imposed for breach of probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition was ordered under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made as the offence is a primary DNA offence.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of a detention and search conducted by police officers executing a search warrant at a residence.

The court found that while the investigative detention was lawful, the subsequent search for officer safety was unlawful as it was conducted as a matter of routine practice without reasonable grounds to believe the officer's safety was at risk.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the unlawful search under the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charges were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment while the defence argued for a two-year penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a 30-month sentence, classifying the offence as low-level trafficking based on the quantity of 69 grams seized.

The court considered mitigating factors including guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts against aggravating factors including prior criminal record and the commercial nature of the offence.

A lifetime firearms prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed, along with a DNA order and forfeiture of seized items.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown filed a Notice of Application for Increased Penalty, which would have mandated a minimum four-month custodial sentence.

The court considered whether the Crown's exercise of discretion in filing the Notice violated Section 7 of the Charter by failing to properly consider Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders.

The court found that the Crown's decision to file the Notice before receiving the Gladue report constituted a violation of Section 7 of the Charter, as it did not demonstrate proper consideration of the offender's unique circumstances as an Aboriginal person.

The Notice was set aside.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including a curfew, substance abuse treatment, and participation in rehabilitative programming, along with a 12-month probation order and a three-year driving prohibition.