Marney Anne Mazurski

The offender was convicted following a jury trial of sexual assault and voyeurism (surreptitiously making a visual recording) involving his intimate partner.

The offender recorded videos and photographs of the victim without her consent while she was unconscious, depicting him inserting objects into her body.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought less than two years in the community.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, finding the starting point of three years for forced penetration offences was appropriate with one additional year for the voyeurism conviction imposed consecutively.

The court considered the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner violence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the degree of physical interference with bodily integrity as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of criminal record, solid work history, and steps toward addressing substance abuse issues.

The accused applied for a detention review after being arrested on new charges while on a release order.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the accused's criminal record, substance abuse issues, and the serious nature of the allegations.

The defence proposed a comprehensive release plan involving residence with sureties in a remote Alberta camp with strict conditions.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Myers, R. v. Antic, and R. v. St-Cloud, found that the proposed plan met the accused's onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court emphasized the principle of restraint and the proportionality of continued detention to a realistic sentence, especially given the accused's mental health issues and time already served.

The accused was released on the proposed terms.

Ryan Abraham pleaded guilty to charges including manslaughter, robbery, threatening death, and firearms offences.

The Crown and defence agreed on a 14-year prison sentence but disputed the amount of "Duncan" credit for harsh presentence custody conditions.

The court, considering aggravating factors (victim impact, repeated firearms prohibitions, prior robbery conviction) and mitigating factors (guilty pleas, remorse, willingness to resolve charges, delays), determined a fit sentence.

The primary issue was the qualitative assessment of presentence custody conditions for the "Duncan" credit, with the court ultimately granting 12 months of Duncan credit, leading to a remaining sentence of just over six years after applying both Duncan and Summers credits.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his two step-daughters, C.F. and T.A. The Crown and defence jointly submitted a six-year incarceration period, acknowledging it was at the low end of the appropriate range for such aggravating facts.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing the profound importance of a guilty plea in providing validation to victims and demonstrating the accused's remorse and potential for rehabilitation, thereby sparing all participants the ordeal of a trial.

This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.

The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.

It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.

The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.

The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.

The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.

The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.

The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.

The accused, J. A. V., was charged with seven sexual offences involving three complainants, all under 16.

The court considered similar fact evidence for most allegations.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts related to M. H. (first and fourth incidents of sexual touching while M. was asleep), and not guilty on the remaining five counts involving B. D. and T. G., as well as the "lounge chair" and "penis stroking" incidents involving M. H., due to reasonable doubt regarding credibility, reliability, and implausibility of the complainants' or accused's evidence.

Submissions were requested for a potential stay on the guilty counts and disposition of two remaining Criminal Code breach counts.

The accused, Gary Thompson, faced two counts of attempted murder after allegedly using his motor vehicle to try and kill two individuals.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding a blackout and lack of intent to be inconsistent with circumstantial evidence, including text messages and the extreme force of the vehicle's impact with other objects.

The court concluded that the accused did intend to kill the victims and entered convictions for both counts of attempted murder.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following an incident in North Bay on January 17, 2014.

The trial addressed whether breath samples were taken as soon as practicable under section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code, and whether various Charter rights were violated.

The court found no Charter violations and concluded that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.