Martin Reesink

The accused pleaded guilty to arson endangering life, arson by negligence, and arson causing damage to property, with multiple rolled-up charges.

Between September and October 2024, she set several fires in Ottawa in occupied buildings and commercial properties, creating significant risk to human life and causing substantial property damage.

The court imposed a sentence of 16 months custody (time served) plus 24 months probation with conditions addressing her mental health and addiction issues.

The sentencing considered the accused's Borderline Personality Disorder, substance abuse, and difficult personal circumstances, while balancing the serious danger posed by the offences.

The accused, Sylvie Marshall, was found guilty by a jury of importing cocaine into Canada.

The court, in its sentencing decision, determined that she imported a minimum of 8.5 kilograms of cocaine.

The court rejected her claims that she was compelled by threats from her former husband and that she was unaware of the illicit contents of the cans, finding her testimony inconsistent and lacking credibility.

While acknowledging the history of abuse she suffered, the court concluded it conditioned her actions rather than compelling them.

Considering aggravating factors, including the substantial quantity of cocaine and the involvement of her eight-year-old son, and mitigating factors such as her status as a first offender, her efforts towards rehabilitation, and her remorse, the court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused intended to advance a duress defence based on being a victim of intimate partner violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary foundation for the proposed questions was insufficient and that the questions themselves were inappropriate as they presumed contested facts.

The court held that tailored jury instructions would be the appropriate mechanism to address potential juror bias regarding intimate partner violence once the evidentiary record was established at trial.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion without notice seeking temporary care and sole decision-making authority for the child, alleging the child was in immediate danger in the respondent mother's care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of immediate danger and noting the applicant failed to provide full and frank disclosure.

The court also dismissed the underlying application because it was commenced in Ottawa, which was not the municipality where the child habitually resided, contrary to Rule 5 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant father brought an interim motion for access to his two children, seeking a gradually increasing schedule.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the father's undiagnosed and untreated mental health issues, his failure to comply with a prior order to disclose psychiatric records, and the children's strong views against seeing him.

The court found that the father had not complied with the prior disclosure order and that access was not in the children's best interests at this time.

The motion was dismissed, with leave to renew upon compliance with the disclosure order.

The accused pleaded guilty to domestic violence offences (assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats) after hearing evidence from the complainant and recordings entered into evidence.

The Crown sought a 90-day conditional jail sentence followed by one year of probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that despite the domestic violence context and statutory aggravating factors, the accused's rehabilitation efforts, lack of criminal record, positive pre-sentence report, genuine remorse, and significant collateral consequences (inability to sponsor his pregnant spouse and impact on his business) warranted this disposition.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from the swearing of the first information to the end of trial was 21 months and 12 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan by 3 months and 12 days.

The court found that defence delay totalled 4 months and 13 days, resulting in a net delay of 16 months and 30 days, which fell within the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Ian Bush, faced charges of three counts of first-degree murder.

This decision addresses several pre-trial applications: the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements and similar fact evidence, and the Defence's applications to exclude the accused's Tax Court of Canada (TCC) file and seized property.

The court granted the Crown's hearsay application, finding the statements necessary and reliable.

It dismissed the Crown's similar fact application, concluding that despite high similarity, the overwhelming prejudice from extensive media coverage of the similar act (attempted murder of a 101-year-old veteran) outweighed its probative value.

The court also dismissed the Defence's applications to exclude the TCC file and seized property, finding them relevant and admissible as evidence of motive and identity.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a fatal residential fire.

The plaintiffs alleged the fire was caused by a faulty electrical socket due to the landlord's negligence.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs lacked evidence to prove causation and relied on the statutory defence for accidental fires under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the eyewitness evidence of a surviving child, combined with a forensic engineer's report, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish a genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings and join the provincial Crown and several fire investigators to a negligence action arising from a fatal residential fire.

The court held that the proposed claims were statute‑barred because the alleged negligence relating to the fire investigation was discoverable more than two years before the joinder motion was brought.

The court further found the proposed amendments disclosed no viable cause of action because the investigators owed no private duty of care to the plaintiffs when performing statutory investigative functions.

Additional barriers included the deemed undertaking rule arising from discovery evidence and statutory immunity protecting investigators acting in good faith.

The motion to join the Crown and investigators and amend the pleadings was therefore dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood-alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to s. 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The vehicle in question was an electric scooter.

The court determined that the electric scooter constituted a motor vehicle within the definition in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, as it was designed to be propelled by means other than muscular power.

The court rejected the defence argument that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle when operating without battery power, finding that the nature of the vehicle, not its operability at a particular moment, determines its classification.

The court also found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood-alcohol concentration exceeded 80 at the time of operation, rejecting the defence argument regarding bolus drinking based on the presence of a partially consumed bottle of wine.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was convicted after trial of offering a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

The bribery scheme involved a sophisticated plan to pay millions of dollars to officials of a foreign airline and a cabinet minister to secure a lucrative technology contract.

The court emphasized that bribery of foreign officials undermines the rule of law and Canada’s international obligations and that the dominant sentencing principles are denunciation and general deterrence.

Although the accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated extensively, and the scheme ultimately failed, the court found that the seriousness and planning of the offence required a penitentiary sentence.

A custodial term of three years was imposed.

The accused was charged under s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act for agreeing to offer bribes to officials of a foreign state-owned airline and the country’s Minister of Civil Aviation in order to secure a contract for biometric facial recognition technology.

The Crown alleged that the accused conspired with corporate executives and intermediaries to arrange payments and other benefits to influence the tender process.

The defence argued that no actual bribe to a specific foreign official was proven and that Canada lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the offence under the Act includes agreements or conspiracies to offer bribes and does not require proof that a bribe was ultimately delivered.

Applying the “real and substantial connection” test, the court found sufficient jurisdiction because a Canadian company, Canadian agents, and significant conduct related to the scheme were based in Canada.

The accused was convicted.