Mark Huckabone

This case concerns the sentencing of a 68-year-old man, B.M., who pled guilty to making child pornography and voyeurism by secretly recording two neighbour boys showering.

The offences occurred over several years and involved significant planning and breach of trust.

The court considered extensive victim impact statements, the accused’s personal and medical background, and expert reports including a section 21 Mental Health Act report.

Despite B.M.’s remorse, exemplary life, and low risk to reoffend, the court imposed a global sentence of three years (two years concurrent for making child pornography and one year consecutive for voyeurism), emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in child sexual offences.

The decision also includes lifetime prohibitions on contact with victims and related persons, DNA and firearm orders, and a 20-year sex offender registration requirement.

B.N., a 77-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genitals to his 7-year-old granddaughter.

The offenses occurred over three consecutive nights while he was in a caregiving role.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing R. v. Friesen for the need for increased sentences in child sexual abuse cases.

Despite B.N.'s age, poor health, and low risk of reoffending, the court found that only incarceration could adequately reflect the gravity of the offenses and the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years' incarceration, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including SOIRA registration and a weapons prohibition.

This judgment concerns a murder trial where the accused, Brandon Lamoureux, was charged with the fatal stabbing of Gilbert Rumleskie.

The central issue was the identification of the stabber, with conflicting and unreliable witness testimonies from Jordan Plumb and Ashley Dombroskie, and circumstantial evidence including grainy surveillance video and DNA analysis.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility of all witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies and admitted lies from the Crown's key witnesses.

Despite evidence of animus and prior threats by the accused towards the victim, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused or Jordan Plumb, whose knife was the murder weapon and bore his DNA, inflicted the fatal wound.

The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be rationally inconsistent with any other conclusion than guilt, and that reasonable inferences consistent with innocence can arise from a lack of evidence.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, G.S., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, voyeurism, and assault against his estranged wife, A.H., following the breakdown of their marriage.

The Crown conceded the voyeurism charges during the trial.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both A.H. and G.S., noting significant inconsistencies and exaggerations in A.H.'s testimony, as well as the timing and context of her allegations (made jointly with her new partner, B.).

Despite finding G.S.'s denials of the assault and sexual assaults not entirely credible due to his admitted bitterness and intent to make A.H. uncomfortable, the court found A.H.'s evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

G.S. was acquitted on all remaining charges.

This is a sentencing decision for an individual (G.S.) who pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and possession of a firearm without a licence.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, weighing aggravating factors (breach of trust, degrading nature of the offence) against significant mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of prior record, extremely deprived and abusive childhood, and diagnosed mental illnesses (PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder).

The court distinguished the case from others involving widespread public dissemination or lack of remorse.

Ultimately, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of ten months (with six months house arrest) followed by two years probation for the intimate image offence, and a suspended sentence with one year concurrent probation for the firearms offence, along with a weapons prohibition and forfeiture order.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit evidence of discreditable conduct against the respondent, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The court admitted evidence of specific threats involving a knife made by the respondent to the deceased shortly before the killing, and a prior incident where the respondent brandished a knife and stabbed a motel room wall in the deceased's presence.

However, the court declined to admit evidence of the respondent's prior convictions for weapon possession, robbery (involving knife brandishing), and assault with a weapon, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, particularly on the central issue of who possessed the murder weapon.

The court considered the appropriate sentence for T.A., a 70-year-old offender who pleaded guilty to sexual interference against his step-granddaughter, involving over-the-clothes touching.

T.A. had a prior sexual assault conviction and was assessed as low risk to reoffend.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence (3 years), while the Defence argued for a maximum reformatory sentence (2 years less a day) followed by maximum probation (3 years) to allow T.A. to access treatment at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), which is unavailable in federal penitentiaries for low-risk offenders.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Friesen regarding increased sentences for child sexual offenses, ultimately imposed the reformatory sentence to prioritize rehabilitation and a longer period of supervision, finding it equivalent in protective effect to a mid-single digit penitentiary term.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle dangerously causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

On April 11, 2019, the offender deliberately crossed the centre line of Highway 17 in an attempt to commit suicide by colliding with an oncoming tractor-trailer.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including facial lacerations, loss of an ear, crushed vertebrae, and permanent hearing loss.

The offender was suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic features at the time of the offence.

The court imposed a 9-month custodial sentence, a 7-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA collection, $2,500 restitution, and 3 years probation.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and general deterrence against rehabilitation and restraint, recognizing the offender's mental illness while holding him accountable for the unacceptable risk posed to others.

The accused was charged with four counts of assault against his former common-law partner spanning from 2006 to 2017.

The Crown alleged: (1) assault with a weapon (beer bottle) in 2006-2007; (2) assault in fall 2015 (cooking incident); (3) assault in November 2015 (bathtub incident); and (4) assault on October 17, 2017 (forcible ejection from residence).

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence on counts 1-3 lacked credibility and coherence, with significant gaps in memory and inconsistencies.

On count 4, while the accused admitted applying force, the trial judge found the defence of property under s. 35(1) of the Criminal Code did not apply because the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted on counts 1-3 and convicted on count 4.

The accused was charged with theft of a custom-made anniversary ring valued at approximately $37,900 and possession of stolen property.

The ring went missing from a locked jewelry cabinet during a service call by the accused at the victim's residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's presence at the residence, his subsequent visits to jewelry stores and pawnbrokers, and witness testimony identifying a ring matching the description of the stolen ring.

The accused testified he brought his father's sapphire ring for appraisal and denied taking the victim's ring.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding that while he was probably guilty, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to concerns about the reliability of key witness testimony regarding identification of the ring.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to discharge several construction liens registered against its property, arguing it was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because the work was requested by its bankrupt tenant.

The court found that the landlord and tenant were connected through common directors, officers, and legal counsel, and the landlord had paid substantial amounts for leasehold improvements.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the landlord's status as an owner.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death after striking and fatally injuring a pedestrian following a hockey game.

The court heard evidence from civilian and police witnesses, including accident reconstruction experts.

The judge found that the accused was driving at a high rate of speed (estimated 60 km/h) in an area with significant pedestrian traffic, which constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay the respondent for the installation of two heating systems in a duplex.

The appellant argued the respondent's quote was for two furnaces, while the respondent maintained it was for one and that the parties agreed to double the price for two units.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual finding that the quote was for a single furnace.

The court also dismissed the appellant's claims regarding trial unfairness and bias, concluding the appeal should be dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to transferring two restricted firearms knowing he was not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act, contrary to section 99(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused challenged the mandatory minimum three-year sentence imposed by section 99(2)(a) as violating section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that the mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate both as applied to the offender and as applied to reasonably foreseeable hypothetical situations, such as family members inheriting firearms from deceased soldiers.

The court declared section 99(2)(a) unconstitutional to the extent it imposes a mandatory three-year minimum term of imprisonment.