M. Goodfellow

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge sentence imposed on the respondent for distributing intimate images of his former partner, arguing the sentence was unfit, akin to a disguised conditional sentence, and failed to adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge did not err in principle or law, and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, emphasizing the deference owed to sentencing judges and the individualized nature of sentencing.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge sentence imposed on the respondent for distributing intimate images and breach of a release order.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing a probation order akin to a conditional sentence, failing to adequately address denunciation and deterrence, and concluding the discharge was not contrary to public interest.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge did not err in principle or impose an unfit sentence, emphasizing the individualized nature of sentencing and the deference owed to the sentencing judge's discretion.

The defendant applied for a directed verdict of acquittal on two counts of operating a conveyance with THC in his blood exceeding 5.0 ng/mL, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded no liability for impairment but argued sufficient evidence for the THC concentration.

The court, applying the test for a directed verdict and considering the expert toxicologist's evidence regarding measurement uncertainty (specifically, the +/- 0.4 ng/mL margin of uncertainty on the 5.2 ng/mL reading), found that the Crown failed to negate the reasonable inference that the THC level could have been below 5.0 ng/mL.

Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and the motion for a directed verdict was granted, dismissing counts 1 and 3.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The core issue was whether the accused knew, or was wilfully blind or reckless about, the complainant's age, and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The court found that the accused failed to take all reasonable steps, ignoring 'red flags' such as a message from the complainant's mother stating her age.

The accused was found guilty of both counts.