Michael Peter Bury

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Victoria Bakker, who pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and bodily harm after a tragic collision resulting in the death of Lucas Thomas and serious injury to his mother.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offence with the offender’s low moral blameworthiness, genuine remorse, and strong community support.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less one day house arrest, 240 hours of community service, and a seven-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while recognizing the offender’s personal circumstances and the impact of the tragedy on all involved.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while driving at excessive speeds to show off to his passenger.

The passenger suffered catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including permanent brain damage.

The Crown sought 2.5 to 3 years in a penitentiary, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the deliberate and highly dangerous nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a 6-year driving prohibition.

The defendant, Nathan Gagnon, was tried on two counts: sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and sexual exploitation (s. 153(1) Criminal Code) involving a 16-year-old drug-addicted complainant.

The Crown alleged vitiated consent due to a power imbalance (s. 273.1(2)(c)) and an exploitative relationship.

The defence conceded sexual touching but argued consent was not vitiated and the relationship was not exploitative.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the defendant and the complainant, noting the complainant's impaired memory due to drug use and potential hindsight bias.

Ultimately, the court found that both the Crown's theory and the defence's position might reasonably be true, leaving a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

Jason Georgopoulos was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while attempting to pass a streetcar at high speed, seriously injuring his administrative assistant.

The defendant brought two pre-trial applications: a stay of proceedings for delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter (Jordan motion) and, alternatively, a stay for lost evidence (Infotainment unit data).

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the delay was not unreasonable after accounting for defence-caused delay and COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances, and that the alleged lost evidence either never existed or would not have impacted the trial's outcome.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and concluded that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The defendant, Ganon Nathan, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The court reviewed the legal tests for directed verdicts and the essential elements of the offences, particularly concerning vitiated consent due to abuse of a position of power (sexual assault) and the existence of an exploitative relationship (sexual exploitation).

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements for both charges, including evidence of a power imbalance and an exploitative relationship, and dismissed the application for directed verdicts.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated assault and other offences, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The sentencing judge had found him to be a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code, concluding he posed a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that his conduct was intractable, despite his treating psychiatrist's opinion that his illnesses were treatable.

The appellant also argued that inconsistent evidence regarding his Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) status warranted a new assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, finding no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of intractability based on the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and continued assaultive behaviour.

The Court also rejected the argument for a new NCR assessment, clarifying that the psychiatrist's statement was not inconsistent with the prior NCR assessment.

The accused was convicted of simple possession of fentanyl following a trial.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, emphasizing the toxicity of fentanyl and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court rejected a custodial sentence, finding that the fentanyl crisis is primarily a public health issue rather than one requiring criminal deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years' probation, including conditions requiring monthly reporting, residence approval, non-association with criminals, abstinence from controlled substances, and participation in substance abuse and mental health counselling.

Nadia Minetto, an accounting manager, defrauded her employer, Wescom Solutions Inc. (WSI), by using its corporate credit card to purchase Apple products and reselling them.

Gabriel Fung, through his businesses GF International and Plus One Solutions, purchased over 10,000 Apple products from Minetto for $5.2 million in cash.

WSI obtained a consent judgment against Minetto and brought an action against Fung and his entities, alleging knowing receipt or wilful blindness to the fraudulent nature of the goods.

The court found that Fung was wilfully blind to the fact that the Apple products were stolen or fraudulently obtained from March 30, 2012, onwards.

Judgment was granted against Fung and his businesses for $5,094,674.72, plus interest, with a corresponding crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Minetto.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two defendants to trial on nine drug-related offences arising from the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and proceeds of crime from a house at 54 Sharpe Street in Toronto on November 25, 2015.

Bromfield conceded committal only for cocaine and proceeds found on his person.

Smithson conceded committal only for cocaine found in the basement where she resided.

The court applied the test for sufficiency of evidence at committal, focusing on the doctrines of constructive and joint possession.

The court found insufficient evidence to support committal on contested counts, discharging both defendants on most charges while committing Bromfield on two counts and Smithson on one count.

The applicant sought spousal support and child support for her daughter from a prior relationship following the breakdown of a ten-year common law relationship.

The respondent opposed both claims.

The court found that the respondent did not demonstrate a settled intention to treat the applicant's daughter as a child of the family and therefore dismissed the child support claim.

However, the court found that the parties were spouses within the definition of the Family Law Act and that the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases.

The applicant was awarded monthly spousal support and a retroactive lump sum payment.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to comply with an access order, though he subsequently purged his contempt.

The father also brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself, arguing that the previous contempt finding created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that adverse credibility findings in interlocutory proceedings do not inherently create bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in full recovery costs due to his bad faith.

On the issue of primary residence, the court found it in the best interests of the children to reside with the mother in Barrie pending final resolution, given the father's history of thwarting access and the mother's ability to provide a stable environment.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to release the children for access, and he brought a preliminary motion requesting the judge recuse himself due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from adverse credibility findings in the contempt decision.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that prior adverse credibility findings do not inherently create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in costs on a full recovery basis due to his bad faith.

Regarding primary residence, the court found it in the children's best interests to reside with the mother pending final resolution, citing the father's history of thwarting access and concerns about his ability to promote a positive environment.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant father repeatedly breached a consent access order by refusing to deliver the parties’ children for scheduled parenting exchanges.

The father admitted he knew the order but claimed he would not force the child to attend visits because the child expressed reluctance and alleged safety concerns about the mother’s partner.

Child protection authorities had investigated and found no basis for the father’s allegations.

The court found the father intentionally disobeyed a clear order and that any reluctance expressed by the child resulted from the father’s coaching or influence.

Applying the civil contempt test, the court held the breach was wilful and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and adjourned the matter for a separate penalty hearing.