Melanie Sopinka

Following a trial conducted over multiple days in May and June 2014, the accused was found guilty of attempted murder and criminal harassment against his former girlfriend and colleague.

The accused had engaged in a months-long campaign of harassment involving numerous emails attempting to coerce the victim into continuing their relationship.

On September 23, 2013, the accused stabbed and wounded the victim in a bush lot near her home in Waterloo.

The victim's injuries were superficial but potentially life-threatening.

The accused subsequently inflicted serious self-harm.

The sentencing decision addresses the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in the context of domestic violence, the significance of planning and deliberation, and the collateral consequences of deportation for a non-citizen offender.

The Crown applied for an order under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code permitting the alleged victim to testify via closed-circuit remote testimony outside the courtroom.

The accused faced charges of attempted murder and criminal harassment.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold of necessity had been met based on evidence of the victim's severe trauma, anxiety, and fear resulting from the violent attack and preceding harassment.

The court considered the victim's age, the nature of the offences, the relationship between the parties, and the victim's emotional state as demonstrated through testimony from the investigating officer and a victim services counselor.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and criminal harassment following an incident on September 23, 2013, in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Crown alleged that the accused stabbed the victim with a knife, wounding her on the neck, with the specific intent to kill her.

The accused had previously engaged in a controlling relationship with the victim, using self-harm as a manipulation tactic.

After the victim ended the relationship, the accused sent numerous threatening emails from China detailing a plan to kill the victim and then commit suicide.

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after the court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the specific intent to kill the victim.

The criminal harassment charge was resolved by guilty plea.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault and two counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from incidents involving his intimate partner, as well as the resulting intermittent custodial sentence and probation order.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly relied on the rule in Browne v. Dunn when assessing credibility.

The court held that the trial judge was largely correct in finding that several aspects of the appellant’s testimony had not been properly put to the complainant in cross-examination and was entitled to reduce the weight of that evidence.

Any minor factual errors were insignificant and did not materially affect the reasoning or outcome.

The sentence was also found to be within the appropriate range given the seriousness of the injuries and the domestic context.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault against two young sisters occurring in 1986.

The offences involved inappropriate touching of the victims' genital areas and buttocks during social visits.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was available given that such sentences were not available at the time of the offence (1986) or at the time of sentencing (2012), but were available between 1996 and 2007.

The court held that section 11(i) of the Charter entitled the accused to the benefit of the lesser punishment available during the intervening period.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for eight months and electronic monitoring, followed by one year of probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be adequately addressed through community-based sentencing given the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and 25-year history without incident.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident under s. 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code after striking a pedestrian with his vehicle and leaving the scene.

The victim suffered severe injuries including multiple fractures, skull fracture, and upper vertebrae fracture.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation and a 2-year driving prohibition, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized that principles of general deterrence and denunciation were paramount given the serious nature of the offence and the significant harm to the victim.