Michael Martin

The offender pleaded guilty to 20 counts of arson, including multiple counts of arson with disregard for human life, following a crime spree in which he set numerous fires in residential and commercial areas while highly intoxicated.

The fires caused over $3.1 million in property damage and displaced numerous residents, though no one was seriously injured.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, his Aboriginal background (Gladue factors), and his struggles with substance abuse and potential fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 12 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Cory Greavette and Douglas Flett, were jointly tried on charges including robbery, possession of property obtained by crime, uttering threats (Greavette only), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (Greavette only).

The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable and incredible due to memory issues, inconsistencies, admitted dishonesty, and lack of common sense.

Corroborative evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome these frailties.

The court found both accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, C.L., was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, P.J., became severely intoxicated and unconscious at a party hosted by C.L. She testified to blacking out and having fragmented memories of sexual activity with C.L., to which she did not consent.

C.L. claimed P.J. consented and participated.

The court found P.J. was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication and unconsciousness, and that C.L. was reckless and wilfully blind to her lack of consent.

C.L. was found guilty of sexual assault.

The appellant, R. J.-B., appealed his sentence of 35 months in custody for two convictions of sexual assault, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the immigration consequences, which would lead to his automatic deportation.

The appellant sought a reduced sentence of six months less one day per count (consecutive) or a conditional sentence of 18 months per count to preserve his right to appeal the removal order.

The court acknowledged that immigration consequences can be relevant in sentencing but found the proposed sentences manifestly unfit given the egregious nature of the crimes, which involved digital and attempted vaginal penetration of his 16-year-old cousin, whom he was supposed to be helping after she had been previously sexually abused.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence as fit and not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant, R.J.-B., sought to set aside the dismissal of his appeal against convictions for two counts of sexual assault and his sentence, which had been dismissed due to his counsel's delays.

The Superior Court of Justice, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice, reinstated the appeal solely regarding the sentence.

The court found that the appellant was not at fault for the delays and that the sentence appeal had arguable merit, particularly concerning unaddressed immigration consequences.

However, the appeal against convictions was not reinstated, as the arguments advanced were deemed devoid of merit.

The accused, Steven Henry, was found guilty of assault with a weapon, attempted break and enter with intent, and attempted forcible entry.

The charges arose from an incident where Henry, impatient for his ex-wife, Monica Blais, to vacate their former matrimonial home, violently attempted to enter the residence by smashing windows with a baseball bat.

Blais, who was still legally entitled to reside there, fired a rifle, injuring Henry and ending the altercation.

The court rejected Henry's defence of "colour of right," finding he had no honest belief in his right to enter the home on the date of the incident, as a prior consent order stipulated Blais had 60 days to vacate after receiving a payment, which period had not yet elapsed.

A 45-year-old first offender was sentenced for sexually assaulting his 20-year-old step-daughter during a massage.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, multiple touches to private parts, and the devastating effect on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and a positive presentence report.

The Crown sought six months jail, while the Defence sought 60-90 days intermittent.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, a firearms prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against his 20-year-old step-daughter.

The allegations arose from an incident where the accused gave the complainant a massage, during which he allegedly touched her private parts without consent.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, the accused, and the accused's wife.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's denials due to inconsistencies, poor memory, and collaboration with his wife.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The court issued supplementary reasons to correct an error in a previous sentencing order.

The initial Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was incorrectly set for twenty years.

Upon review, the court determined that the SOIRA order should have been for life, as the offender had been convicted of more than one "designated offence" under subsection 490.022(3)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The sentence was accordingly amended to impose a lifetime SOIRA order without objection from counsel.

The offender was found guilty of multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault and sexual interference, against his 12-13 year old step-daughter.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court declined to apply the Kienapple principle to stay counts 1 or 2, finding the incidents were separate transactions.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, and noting the offender's breach of trust and prior record for violence, the court imposed a global sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, the step-father of the 12-year-old complainant, was tried for multiple sexual offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genitals.

The offences occurred during the summer of 2013 and on New Year's 2013/2014.

The sole issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's testimony, given inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and an alleged motive to fabricate.

The court applied the common sense approach to child witness testimony, found the complainant to be credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused, facing multiple charges including human trafficking, prostitution, firearms, and drug offences, brought pretrial applications for a change of venue and severance of counts.

The accused argued that pretrial publicity necessitated a change of venue and that the drug charges should be severed because he only intended to testify regarding the other offences.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the pretrial publicity was largely stale and could be addressed by trial safeguards, and that the strong factual nexus between the charges favoured a single trial.

The Crown applied to summarily dismiss the defence's pretrial applications for a stay of proceedings and for third-party records.

The accused, charged with assaulting their children, sought a stay based on alleged warrantless police attendances at their property and sought records from the Children's Aid Society.

The court allowed the third-party records application to proceed in part, despite service issues, but summarily dismissed the stay application as frivolous under Rule 6.11(2), finding it had no reasonable prospect of success even if the alleged facts were true.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of dangerous driving (racing) causing death and bodily harm after engaging in a high-speed street race that resulted in the other driver losing control, striking an innocent bystander's vehicle, killing the other racing driver, and seriously injuring the bystander.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court balanced the principles of denunciation and general deterrence against the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months in custody, a 5-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery with violence, disguise with intent, and uttering threats arising from a convenience store robbery in which the offender assaulted and threatened the store clerk while stealing cigarettes and money.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record, including numerous prior convictions for violent and related offences, and applied the sentencing principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including consideration of the offender’s Indigenous background.

The court found denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, and rehabilitation to be the dominant sentencing objectives.

Despite the offender’s difficult upbringing and family circumstances, his chronic recidivism and the violent nature of the offence were significant aggravating factors.

A global custodial sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and concurrent sentences on the related counts.

The 23-year-old offender, with no prior criminal record, was convicted of dangerous driving (racing) causing death and bodily harm after engaging in a street race that resulted in the other driver's death and severe injuries to an innocent bystander.

The court weighed the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and general deterrence against the mitigating factors of the offender's youth, positive character, and lack of criminal history.

The court sentenced the offender to 18 months in custody, a 5-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition.

The offender was found guilty of breaking and entering with intent after entering a female friend's home without permission and rummaging through her undergarments.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought probation, an intermittent sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and the significant breach of trust, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently, followed by three years of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused brought a bail review application after being detained by a justice of the peace on the secondary ground under s. 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a significantly revised bail plan with new proposed sureties and also noted a misapprehension regarding the number of charges at the original hearing, permitting a de novo review.

While the court concluded detention was not justified on the primary or tertiary grounds, it held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground.

Concerns about credibility, extensive prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty, and the weakness and impracticality of the proposed surety supervision plan created a substantial likelihood of further offences or interference with the administration of justice.