Michael Wilson

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

Following convictions for luring, making, possessing, and accessing child pornography, and for sexual exploitation arising from a basketball coach's grooming of teenage players, the offender brought a constitutional challenge to multiple mandatory minimum sentences.

Applying the s. 12 framework from Nur, the court held that the one-year mandatory minimum for luring had already been invalidated by appellate authority and that the one-year mandatory minimum for sexual exploitation was grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable cases.

The court rejected the challenge to the one-year minimum for making child pornography and the six-month minimums for possession and access, finding those punishments not grossly disproportionate either for the offender or the proposed hypotheticals.

The application was therefore allowed in part, with sentencing reasons to follow.

Criminal trial concerning a basketball coach charged with multiple child pornography and sexual exploitation offences arising from text-message communications with underage players.

The court held that explicit photos and videos of a complainant's penis and masturbation were child pornography under s. 163.1, applying the objective approach in Sharpe, and rejected the accused's position that the exchanges were merely jokes or locker-room talk.

The court further found that the accused occupied a position of trust or authority over one complainant and that the private use exception was unavailable because the sexual activity was unlawful notwithstanding apparent consent.

Acquittals were entered on counts where age or statutory elements were not proved, but convictions were entered on multiple communicating, making, possession, access, invitation to sexual touching, and attempt counts.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on age and family status during a meeting regarding her work allocation.

The applicant claimed the individual respondent told her she was unqualified for her accounts payable role because she started at age 21 and that she did not need her job because she lived with her mother.

The Tribunal found the individual respondent's evidence more reliable than the applicant's, concluding that the alleged discriminatory statements were not made.

The application was dismissed.