Michal Sokolski

The court ruled on the admissibility of three police statements made by the accused, Rebecca Eden, in a first-degree murder investigation.

The first two statements (audio and video) were made on June 10, 2021, when she was a person of interest.

The third statement was made on March 11, 2022, after her arrest for first-degree murder.

The court found that the accused was detained during the second statement, and her Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) were violated due to police conduct, including failing to inform her of the true reasons for detention and the seizure of her phone without informed consent.

Applying the "tainting" doctrine from R. v. Pino, these Charter breaches retroactively rendered the first (audio) statement inadmissible as part of the same transaction.

For the third statement, the court found that the police violated the accused's section 7 right to silence by persistently questioning her despite her repeated assertions (106-108 times) that she wished to remain silent on advice of counsel.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that admitting all three statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

All three statements were ruled inadmissible.

This decision concerns a youth sentence review for N.M., who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

N.M. sought to convert the balance of his custodial term to community supervision, which the Crown opposed.

The court granted N.M.'s application, finding that he met the high standard required for early conditional supervision.

The judge emphasized N.M.'s significant rehabilitative progress, strong personal support network, and criticized the provincial government's handling of his transition from youth to adult correctional facilities, which hindered his rehabilitation.

Michael Sawicki pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for transmitting HSV-2 to two intimate partners without disclosure.

The offences occurred between 2016 and 2019, with one victim being a minor.

The court considered the long-term, debilitating impact on the victims and the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust.

Despite the defence seeking a non-custodial or conditional sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding that only a real jail sentence would adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the offender's moral culpability.

Sawicki was sentenced to ten months imprisonment, followed by two years of probation.

Margaret Park-Romain pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender's background, and sentencing principles, including the disparity between sentences for dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death.

The judge emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, imposing a three-year penitentiary sentence and a five-year driving prohibition, plus the period of imprisonment.

Brent Armitage pleaded guilty to failing to remain at a collision that resulted in death.

The Crown sought 18-24 months real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim's family, and the offender's background, including his genuine remorse and health issues (sleep apnea).

Applying the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 18 months probation, a 5-year driving prohibition, and other conditions, finding that a conditional sentence would better achieve the sentencing objectives than real jail given the specific circumstances.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of child pornography and bestiality.

The Crown sought a four-month custodial sentence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and low risk of re-offending.

The court, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Friesen, emphasized the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual exploitation offences.

Despite the defendant's personal circumstances and progress in rehabilitation, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary due to the gravity of the offences and their significant impact on the victims.

The defendant was sentenced to a total of three months' custody, followed by two years of probation, a 10-year prohibition order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The defendant pleaded guilty to voyeurism, making child pornography, and distributing child pornography, offences facilitated by sexual interference.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the profound harm to the child victims, and the defendant's personal circumstances as a young first offender with a history of abuse and mental health issues.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence from R. v. Friesen, balanced with the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders from R. v. Priest, the court sentenced the defendant to 18 months in a provincial reformatory, concurrently for each count, followed by three years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime registration on the federal sex offender registry, and a lifetime prohibition from employment or volunteering with persons under 16.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two young girls.

The offences occurred over several years, and the defendant later self-disclosed his misconduct.

The court considered the principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, giving primary consideration to the protection of children as per R. v. Friesen.

Despite the mitigating factor of self-disclosure, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severe impact on the victims, as conveyed in their victim impact statements.

A custodial sentence was deemed necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offences and the harm caused.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving his half-sisters, aged five and ten.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and significant harm to victims, and mitigating factors, such as the defendant's guilty plea, difficult childhood, and efforts at rehabilitation.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

A total sentence of 31.5 months (including pre-sentence custody) was imposed, along with a three-year probation, DNA order, SOIRA registration, weapons prohibition, and a 10-year prohibition on employment/volunteering with persons under 16 and unsupervised contact with children.

The Crown brought a bail review after the accused, an American national, was released on bail following his arrest at the border for smuggling three handguns and ammunition in hidden compartments.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice gave excessive weight to the accused's lack of a criminal record and insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the strong probability of conviction.

The court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The release order was vacated and the accused was ordered detained.

The defendants were charged with assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats following an incident at the Welland Inn.

The Crown alleged that the defendants and a third party attacked the complainant after he arrived at the hotel with his spouse to check on a property sale.

The defendants claimed the complainant attacked them with a walking stick and they acted in self-defence.

The court found the complainant and his spouse's testimony credible and coherent, rejected the defendants' version as internally and externally inconsistent, and found no air of reality to the self-defence claim.

Both defendants were convicted of assault causing bodily harm, and Paolo Rego was additionally convicted of uttering threats.

The defendant, a 19-year-old with a significant criminal record, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm (a .38 calibre revolver) without ammunition.

The defendant had attempted to purchase the firearm for $1,800 through an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence with 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, while the defence argued for 12-18 months with enhanced 1.5:1 credit.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence followed by three years of probation, with 1.25:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in approximately 172 days remaining to be served.

The court emphasized the seriousness of firearm offences while considering the defendant's youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation potential.

The applicants sought to exclude text messages obtained by police through a production order directed to a telecommunications provider, arguing that the messages constituted private communications requiring a wiretap authorization under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted that text messages attract a reasonable expectation of privacy but held that the statutory regime governing interceptions applies only to contemporaneous surveillance of communications.

The retrieval of stored text messages from a service provider after the communication had occurred did not amount to an interception.

The court found that the use of a production order under s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code was the proper legal mechanism and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter.