Michael G. March

Clayton Forrest brought an application for standing under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to challenge the validity of a search warrant executed by the Ontario Provincial Police at a dwelling house.

Forrest was found in the basement of the searched unit, where controlled substances and personal items were seized.

He argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement as a guest.

The court applied the "totality of circumstances" test, considering factors such as presence, control, ownership, and historical use.

Despite Forrest's subjective expectation and presence, the court found that he did not objectively establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area, which appeared to be a storage/drug use area rather than his living quarters, and his stated residences elsewhere contradicted his claim.

The search warrant for the unit was deemed to extend to the basement.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and that the police provided reasonable opportunities for the accused to contact counsel of choice, which he failed to diligently pursue.

The court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample, as he intentionally placed an invalid condition on his compliance.

However, the court acquitted the accused of impaired driving, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

Hayden Bieber pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace (all Criminal Code offences), and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act).

The offences occurred following a traffic stop where police found drugs, cash, and brass knuckles.

Bieber, 25, had no prior criminal record and had made significant efforts towards rehabilitation, including abstaining from drugs for a year and attending Narcotics Anonymous.

The Crown sought a 4-year incarceration, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day, or a sentence in the upper reformatory/lower penitentiary range if incarceration was necessary.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for fentanyl trafficking, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate despite Bieber's rehabilitative efforts and lack of criminal record.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 36 months (3 years) of imprisonment, after applying credit for pre-sentence release conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture/destruction of seized substances.

The accused, T.M., was charged with multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against R.G., and one count of assault against E.M. The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.G., and the accused, T.M., applying the W.D. analysis.

The court found R.G.'s evidence to be inconsistent and unreliable, noting her animus towards T.M. and delayed, inconsistent disclosures.

The court believed T.M.'s denials and found him not guilty on all charges.

Sarah Lochead was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg within two hours of ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defense admitted the Crown's case but sought to invoke the exception under section 320.14(5), arguing she consumed alcohol only after ceasing to operate her vehicle, had no reasonable expectation of providing a breath sample, and her BAC was below 80 mg while driving.

The court found her testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding her cell reception, travel time, and alcohol consumption claims.

The court concluded she failed to prove the statutory prerequisites for the exception on a balance of probabilities and found her guilty.

Terry Hemington brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a production order and subsequent search warrants (residence, cell phone, and Dropbox) obtained by police in an investigation into child pornography charges.

Hemington argued that the initial Information to Obtain (ITO) for the production order lacked sufficient grounds, leading to a violation of his Section 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the ITOs, applying principles of judicial review for search warrants, including the 'credibly-based probability' standard and the duty of full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The court found that despite some deficiencies in the drafting of the ITO, the issuing judicial officer had reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, based on the reported image, the officer's expertise, and the 'Lolita' reference.

Consequently, the production order and subsequent warrants were deemed valid, and Hemington's Charter application was dismissed.

Everett Milotte was found guilty of careless storage of a firearm, possession of a prohibited device (switchblade), and possession of a prohibited firearm.

The offences arose from a domestic incident where Milotte sent a suicidal text with a handgun picture, prompting police intervention and the discovery of numerous weapons, some unlawfully possessed or stored.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intent to cause fear and the risk from careless storage, alongside significant mitigating factors such as Milotte's lack of criminal record, cooperation with police, and extensive rehabilitation efforts following a period of situational distress.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, probation, a DNA order, and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The defence requested a conditional discharge and probation, arguing against a criminal record and further prohibition.

The court ultimately granted a conditional discharge with one year of probation, declined a DNA order and a separate s. 109 weapons prohibition, but included a weapons prohibition as a condition of probation.

A forfeiture and destruction order for unlawfully owned weapons was also made.

This decision concerns the sentencing of J.K., who was found guilty of assaulting her son with a belt, unlawfully confining him in a basement, and assaulting him by slapping and squeezing his chin.

The Crown sought 18-24 months incarceration, while the defence requested a 20-month conditional sentence.

The court considered various sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, rehabilitation, and reparations.

Aggravating factors included the victim being a child under 18, abuse of trust, significant psychological impact, and repeated offences.

Mitigating factors included no prior violent convictions, family support, employment history, and willingness to engage in parenting and mental health programs.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the first 16 months under house arrest, followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

C.C., a young person, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, J.M., testified that C.C. touched her buttocks without consent after she verbally protested.

The court applied the principles of consent from R. v. Ewanchuk and R. v. Barton, finding that J.M.'s subsequent "freezing" or passivity did not constitute consent.

The court determined that C.C. did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and was reckless in continuing the sexual touching despite J.M.'s protests.

The Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

C.C. was found guilty.

The accused, Samantha Tripp, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The defence argued a breach of her s. 10(b) Charter rights and that breath samples were not taken "as soon as practicable." The court found no Charter breach, as police delay was justified by public safety concerns and practical limitations.

The court also found the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" given the circumstances.

The presumption of care and control was not rebutted.

Based on the evidence of police officers and a civilian witness, the court found the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was significantly impaired by alcohol.

Tripp was found guilty of both offences.

T.N. was found guilty of sexual assault.

The Crown sought 3-5 years incarceration, while the defence sought 9 months incarceration followed by 2 years probation.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (breach of trust, psychological impact on victim, manipulation), and mitigating factors (no criminal record, youth, good character, employment history).

The judge emphasized individualization of sentence over strict adherence to ranges, noting the devastating impact on the victim and the offender's good rehabilitation prospects despite denial of guilt.

T.N. was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, followed by 3 years probation with conditions, DNA order, 20-year SOIRA registration, and 10-year weapons prohibition.

Joseph Butera was found guilty of possession of child pornography and arranging through telecommunication to sexually assault a child under the age of 16.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the repeated attempts to have the victim's mother breach trust, instructions for sexual interference, the request for new child pornography images, and the substantial collection of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in light of R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of 45 months, reduced to 38 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and a COVID-19 pandemic multiplier.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime SOIRA registration, forfeiture of devices, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and various lifetime prohibitions on contact with children and internet use.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of fraud, conspiracy, forgery, and public mischief arising from two schemes.

In the first, he conspired to sell a wood processor and falsely reported it stolen to police and his insurer to claim the insurance proceeds.

In the second, he forged a bill of sale for a non-existent wood processor to obtain financing from a leasing company.

The court rejected the accused's statement to police as incredible and accepted the evidence of his accomplices, which was corroborated by independent witnesses and documentary evidence.

The accused was found guilty on 11 counts and acquitted on one count of possessing proceeds of crime.

The accused, a mother, was charged with assault with a weapon (belt) against two children, unlawful confinement of one child, and simple assault.

The trial involved conflicting evidence from the children, the accused, a friend of the accused who witnessed incidents, and various other witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting one child with a belt, confining that child unlawfully in the basement, and assaulting that child by striking the head and squeezing the chin.

The court acquitted on the charge of assaulting the second child with a belt due to insufficient evidence.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of assessing child witness credibility without applying adult standards and the reliability of videotaped statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism against an intoxicated sleeping victim.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration plus 2 years probation.

The defence sought 9 months incarceration.

The sentencing judge imposed 12 months incarceration followed by 2 years probation, with the voyeurism count running concurrently due to COVID-19 pandemic considerations.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles given the offender's contemptuous disregard for the victim's lack of consent and the surreptitious recording of the assault.

The accused, a self-represented inmate, brought multiple Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds of alleged violations of his rights to privacy, full answer and defence, and a fair trial.

The accused alleged privacy violations arising from exposure of his genitals during medical treatment and use of washroom facilities while under video surveillance at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

He also alleged that disclosure was not provided in a timely manner and that his incarceration without access to counsel, the internet, or adequate telephone access compromised his ability to prepare his defence.

The court dismissed all applications, finding no Charter breaches that would warrant a stay of proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle dangerously causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

On April 11, 2019, the offender deliberately crossed the centre line of Highway 17 in an attempt to commit suicide by colliding with an oncoming tractor-trailer.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including facial lacerations, loss of an ear, crushed vertebrae, and permanent hearing loss.

The offender was suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic features at the time of the offence.

The court imposed a 9-month custodial sentence, a 7-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA collection, $2,500 restitution, and 3 years probation.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and general deterrence against rehabilitation and restraint, recognizing the offender's mental illness while holding him accountable for the unacceptable risk posed to others.

A young person charged with two counts of sexual assault under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The complainant alleged sexual assault on March 17, 2017, and during summer 2017 at a Tim Hortons restaurant.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual sexual activity on the first occasion and denying any sexual contact on the second occasion.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence, and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing credibility based on logic, human experience, and common sense, and rejects stereotypical assumptions about how sexual assault victims should behave.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused was arrested following a police investigation into fentanyl distribution in Eastern Ontario.

Police recovered 146 fentanyl patches, 350 oxycodone tablets, approximately $30,000 in cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia from two residences.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and general deterrence in response to the opioid crisis.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code for conduct that allegedly occurred on July 7, 2017, during a camping trip to Algonquin Park.

The Crown alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant while she was sleeping in a tent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming nothing of a sexual nature occurred while the complainant was sleeping.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's denials.

The judge was particularly influenced by the accused's text messages to the complainant's father, which demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

The judge found that the accused penetrated the complainant's vagina without consent while she was unconscious, constituting sexual assault.