Marni Munsterman

The accused was sentenced after conviction for sexual interference involving digital penetration of a child family member, and after a guilty plea to distributing cannabis to minors.

Applying the proportionality principle and the sentencing objectives in ss. 718 to 718.3 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the victim's age, the breach of trust, the family relationship, and the lasting harm described in victim impact statements.

The court treated the offender's lack of remorse as an absence of mitigation, not an aggravating factor, and weighed his status as a first offender and some treatment amenability as mitigating considerations.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed for the s. 151 offence, together with a concurrent 30-day sentence on the Cannabis Act offence and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, and s. 161 orders.

This decision addresses the sentencing of J.V. for luring contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, suffering from Parkinson’s Disease and a neurodevelopmental disorder, pleaded guilty and sought a conditional sentence due to his medical vulnerabilities and diminished moral blameworthiness linked to his medication and cognitive impairments.

The Court balanced aggravating factors, including the sending of explicit images and intent to meet a purported minor, against mitigating factors such as remorse, lack of prior relevant record, and significant health issues.

The Court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest and probation, alongside lifetime prohibitions and registration orders, emphasizing individualized sentencing and the accommodation of medical needs.

The offender, R. V., was found guilty of sexual interference involving a 7-8 year old female child.

The sentencing proceeded in abstentia due to the offender's unconfirmed whereabouts.

The court considered aggravating factors including repeated incidents with penetration, a dated but significant criminal record, and a breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors such as a strong work history, family support, health issues, and a low risk of re-offending.

Applying the principles from Friesen (2020 SCC 9), which emphasizes denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse, the court imposed an 8-year prison sentence.

The accused, J.M., was charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter, B.V., a young person under 16 years of age, between June 1, 2017 and December 30, 2017.

The charges included sexual touching contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, sexual touching by a person in a position of trust or authority contrary to section 153(1)(a), and sexual assault contrary to section 271.

The trial proceeded over five days.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a child witness.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, rejected the accused's evidence, and convicted him on all counts.

The court found that the accused intentionally touched the complainant for a sexual purpose on approximately ten occasions, exploiting his position of trust and the complainant's vulnerability.

The offender was convicted of forgery and obstruction of justice after submitting a forged letter of support from her employer during a sentencing hearing for a previous fraud conviction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 18 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's premeditated attempt to deceive the court and her prior criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 20 months' imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation.

The Crown's request for a DNA order was denied.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity to consent to treatment with Clozapine and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed fresh evidence included an affidavit and medical records regarding his prior capable wishes.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence, the appellant had chosen not to testify, and the reliability of the new evidence was questionable.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on his appeal from decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his capacity and the appointment of a substitute decision-maker.

The proposed evidence related to his prior capable wishes regarding treatment with Clozapine.

The court applied the Palmer test and dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at the original hearings with due diligence and that its reliability was questionable given the appellant's periods of incapacity.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault and two counts of failing to comply with an undertaking after an unprovoked attack outside a gas station left the victim with a brain hemorrhage.

The Crown sought 42 months imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years plus probation.

The court weighed the offender's prior criminal record and the severity of the unprovoked attack against his youth and lack of recent charges.

The court sentenced the offender to 36 months imprisonment less 222 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and breach of recognizance following an altercation at a gas station.

The victim suffered a severe brain hemorrhage after being punched and tackled.

The accused claimed self-defence, arguing the victim was the aggressor.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he sucker-punched the victim and engaged in a two-on-one assault with his cousin.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault and breach of recognizance.