Michael Demczur

The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 344 of the Criminal Code.

He accosted an 81-year-old woman at an automated banking machine on Yonge Street in Richmond Hill, used force to rob her of approximately $500, and damaged her eyeglasses valued at approximately $500.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment, less credit for 108 days of presentence custody (credited at 1.5 days per day for a total of 162 days), leaving 18 days to be served.

The defendant was also placed on probation for 36 months with conditions including substance abuse counselling, a no-contact order with the victim, a 100-metre distance restriction, restitution of $1,000, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, extortion, and obstructing justice, arising from a prolonged period of domestic violence against his intimate partner.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of three years.

Applying a 1.5 to 1 credit ratio for two years of pre-trial custody due to lockdown conditions, the court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed three years of probation with strict conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to twelve charges arising from a domestic relationship involving multiple assaults, unlawful confinement, extortion, threats, obstruction of justice, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, credited on a 1.5:1 basis for two years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and her family, anger management counselling, and weapons prohibitions.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a conditional sentence imposed for three counts of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography, arguing the sentencing judge misapprehended the offence circumstances, failed to grasp the nature of the offences, and gave insufficient weight to denunciation and general deterrence.

The court held the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant facts, was entitled to accept the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence that the respondent was not a pedophile, and properly relied on a closely analogous prior authority.

The court reaffirmed that, for certain offenders, a strict conditional sentence can adequately serve denunciation and general deterrence in child pornography cases.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.